Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 12th June 1979 relating to the nomination of members of the Committee of Selection be amended, by leaving out Mr. Paul Dean and inserting Sir Michael Shaw.—[Mr. Gummer]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Coal Liquefaction

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current progress of the development of oil from coal process.

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's coal liquefaction policy.

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on Government support for the National Coal Board's project for the liquefaction of coal.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future plans for coal liquefication in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): I understand that British Petroleum and Phillips Petroleum have informed the National Coal Board that they do not wish to participate in a 25 tonne a day pilot plant at this stage. I have, therefore, asked the NCB to undertake a thorough review of the project prior to firm decisions being taken on how to proceed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first those whose questions are being answered.

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition will regard the Government as having broken their promise if they do not proceed with the development of the oil from coal process? Is he further aware that for three years the Government have given specific promises? There have been the Energy Conservation Act 1981, the Coal Industry Act 1980 and the Coal Industry Act 1982. The truth is, as the hon. Gentleman must be aware, that the financial meanness of the Government is causing this project to flounder.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That might be the preamble to a question, but there ought to be a question.

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) told us that they were keeping their eagle eyes on the scheme? Some eagle, some eyes!
Mr. Moore: For those who are interested in the long-term future of the coal industry, emotion is no substitute for the facts. The Government's position has not changed. The offer of £5 million, subject to substantial private-sector participation, is still on the table. It would he remiss of the Government, and not in the interest of the coal industry or the nation, not to take cognisance of the facts.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware that while what my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said is absolutely true, it is not merely a question of finance, but of the Government's doctrinaire attitude? Does the Minister agree that the whole project, and subsequent projects, should be completely funded by the Government? Is the Minister aware of any other withdrawal of capital investment in the project?

Mr. Moore: Those who are genuinely interested in the long-term future of the coal industry, as opposed to making partisan political points, might wish to check with the National Coal Board, which has confirmed that it will be preparing the review so that it can clearly establish facts that it might not be wise to discuss on the Floor of the House.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the accusation of a doctrinaire approach comes ill from Members of the Labour Party who are making no effort to dissociate themselves from the doctrinaire exploitation of his position by Mr. Scargill? Does my hon. Friend further agree that the key is to be found in Europe? Although the present contribution by the Community probably represents the maximum permissible under present policy, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity at the next meeting of Council of Energy Ministers to raise the whole issue of liquefaction as an essential ingredient of fuel policy?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend makes a legitimate point. I hope that he heard me say that the National Coal Board has agreed to review the matter. A review is clearly necessary. It might be premature, until the review is completed, to ask for further aid beyond that offered by the Community.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the Minister realise that some of us are fed up with the Conservative Government, and with other Governments for that matter, delaying research and development? For too long we have played about and lost our advantage in this sphere. Does the Minister further realise that we are giving away to the Japanese and to other developed nations—and probably to some of the developing nations—the liquefaction of coal because we are holding back instead of going forward as fast as possible?

Mr. Moore: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman and his commitment to the coal industry, but I hope that he will listen carefully to me. There is no delay, other than that needed to ensure the long-term success of such developments. That success is what all of us who are interested in the coal industry wish to see.

Mr. Rost: Should we not recognise that coal conversion will be economic only if the price of coal


remains competitive, and that this will happen only if the phasing out of uneconomic, high-cost pits is allowed to continue?

Mr. Moore: We are at this moment considering the scientific aspects of the project. My hon. Friend is correct to draw to the attention of the House a key ingredient of all liquefaction projects—the cost of the coal.

Mr. J. Dickson Mabon: The Minister referred to further aid from the European Community. How much is actually on offer? Is it within the £5 million to which he referred? Will the review examine the possibility of an application to the EEC for further aid, as the subject is also a matter of interest to Community countries?

Mr. Moore: The Community offer is considerably in excess of the £5 million. It amounts to approximately 40 per cent. of the planned project cost. I shall send the right hon. Gentleman full details. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman, like other hon. Members, might first want to hear the Coal Board's views on the review.

Mr. Skeet: Is the Minister aware that the United Kingdom project is totally uneconomic? Is he also aware that the amount of fuel oil which we anticipated would be produced in the United Kingdom has drastically slumped and that there is, therefore, not the demand for this type of oil?

Mr. Moore: With respect to my hon. Friend's extensive knowledge of this subject, I suggest that none of us should allow ourselves to be too shortsighted. We are talking about the very long term. I am addressing myself to the technological questions and the nature of the technology. That seems an area that requires further review.

Mr. Woodall: Does the Minister realise that liquefaction has proved successful in other countries, notably South Africa, and that the long-term future of the coal industry is tied up with liquefaction? Knowing the Government's attitudes towards nuclear development, we are asking for guarantees of schemes that will keep the coal industry viable well into the next century.

Mr. Moore: I am sure that none of us would want to associate ourselves with the wage costs associated with the example that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I am sure, too, that none of us would deny that the technology in South Africa is chalk and cheese in relation to the kind of technology involved in future, long term, high technology liquefaction projects. We are talking about a review. It is necessary, at this time, to examine this project.

Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Standing Charges

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has yet completed his review of standing charges on gas and electricity.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is now in a position to announce the result of the review into the effect of standing charges on consumers with small incomes.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Mellor): The review is progressing well and is nearly complete. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Chapman: I appreciate that some poorer people could find themselves at a disadvantage if the standing charge were abolished and the lost revenue recouped by raising the unit cost of energy. However, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many people of limited means could benefit from such a proposal, which would also encourage energy conservation? Will he bear this in mind when he comes to draw conclusions from the review?

Mr. Mellor: It is precisely that point—the balance of advantage—that is at the heart of the review, just as it was when this matter was last reviewed in 1976. One reason why it has taken some time to complete is that the numbers involved require sophisticated analysis. It is at the heart of what we are doing.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware that many people with small, limited incomes face the most tremendous difficulties and hardship in paying fuel bills, especially during the winter months? Is he aware that the removal of the standing charges would at least give some help to those whom I have described?

Mr. Mellor: We are well aware of the difficulties caused to poorer people by fuel bills. That is why this winter we shall be spending over £300 million, the largest sum ever, on assistance to those people.

Mr. Winnick: indicated dissent—

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman should know before he shakes his head that the difficulty about standing charges is that not all poor consumers are small consumers. A number of larger consumers of energy are also poor consumers who would not be assisted by a move from a standing charge to a higher unit charge.

Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend agree that charges for renting television sets and telephones are the equivalent of standing charges? Has not the Child Poverty Action Group stated that large poorer families that use large amounts of electricity would be adversely and disproportionately affected by the abolition of standing charges and their transfer to the unit cost of electricity?

Mr. Mellor: I have reason to believe that my hon. Friend is correct. If only the argument were as simple as saying that the poor consumer is a small consumer, it would be a good deal easier to resolve the problem.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Opposition understand that there is no simple answer. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in coming to his conclusions, that the problem confronting old-age pensioners, according to what I am told in my constituency, is that they conserve energy because they cannot afford it, only to find that the standing charge amounts to more than the cost of the electricity that they have used?

Mr. Mellor: There is undoubtedly a category for whom that is true. They tend to be those who feel aggrieved and turn up at the right hon. Gentleman's advice centre, just as they do at mine. The right hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that one figure that has already emerged from the survey is that the number of old-age pensioners for whom the standing charge is larger than the unit charge is no higher than 15 per cent.

North Sea Oil

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the current prices charged for North Sea oil.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Nigel Lawson): BNOC's current price for Forties crude is $33·50 a barrel. The prices for other grades traded by BNOC vary around that price according to quality.

Mr. Douglas: As this price will affect the potential value of Britoil, when does the Secretary of State intend that this particularly obnoxious privatisation is to be brought forward? Does he intend to ensure that the House has ample opportunity to debate the prospectus before it goes to the market?

Mr. Lawson: That was a rather tortuous way into the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. He is well aware that the price of North Sea oil is determined by the response to market forces and has nothing to do with the forthcoming flotation of Britoil, which, I hope, will occur before the end of this year. It is open to the Opposition to make use of a Supply day if they wish to debate this question further. I would think that the House in general and the hon. Gentleman in particular have had ample time to debate these important matters during the passage of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, which I am glad to say is due to receive Royal Assent today.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the Secretary of State examine the circumstances in which the price of petrol has increased under this Government from less than 70p a gallon to i1·70? Is he aware that North Sea oil forms only one part of the question? Will he review the whole issue of petrol price increases that have taken place under this Government?

Mr. Skeet: There is a later question on the subject.

Mr. Evans: Have not the Government contributed to that increase through taxation measures in the Budget?

Mr. Lawson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) muttered, improperly, but quite accurately, from a sedentary position, there is a subsequent question on the Order Paper dealing with this matter. I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the price of petrol in real terms is lower today than it was in 1975.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Did not the Secretary of State agree that, at some stage in our proceedings and before the market flotation, we should debate the prospectus and the heads of agreement of the participation agreement between BNOC and Britoil? Will he confirm that he intends to advise the Leader of the House that such a procedure would be desirable if he intends to act before the end of the year?

Mr. Lawson: The heads of agreement of the participation agreement between Britoil and BNOC will be placed in the Library and will therefore be available to all hon. Members. Similarly, the prospectus will be published at the normal time before the flotation and will be available to all hon. Members. The debates that take place on the Floor of the House are partly a matter for the Opposition, who may wish to choose this subject for a Supply day debate. I should be happy to participate in such a debate. Ultimately, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to invite cash tender bids for North Sea blocks in the eighth licensing round.

Mr. Lawson: I expect to issue the formal invitation to apply for all eighth round blocks, including those to be offered for cash tender bids, in September.

Mr. Morris: I welcome that news. However, will the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, which we assume will have passed into law by then, mean that those who are bidding will be in a better position to bid for gas contracts and will therefore be able to bring gas ashore with a greater prospect of profits than they were able to expect in the past?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill will receive the Royal Assent and become an Act before questions are finished today. As for the eighth round, my hon. Friend is also right. That is why between 30 and 40 blocks in the mature southern gas basin will be on offer in the eighth round.

Mr. Rowlands: Will not these choice blocks go to the highest bidders, who will be the large multinationals? Will not the scheme therefore discriminate against smaller independent private British companies, over which the right hon. Gentleman cried so many crocodile tears in the seventh round?
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify another aspect of the highest-bidder system? Will he stick strictly to that rule? Will the blocks go to the highest bidders or will other discretionary aspects be involved—the performance or reputation of the companies, for example? Above all, will he make sure that any such tender system will be public and above board, so that we may all judge it?

Mr. Lawson: May I correct a statement that 1 made a little earlier, Mr. Speaker? I am informed that the Royal Assent to the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill was signified a few minutes ago in the other place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Bill has not been signified here yet.

Mr. Lawson: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those happy occasions, of which there are many, on which both you and I are correct.
The majority of the blocks will not be subject to the tender procedure. They will be allocated on a discretionary basis, which I know the hon. Gentleman prefers. That includes all the 30 to 40 gas blocks to which I referred a moment ago. About 15 blocks in the mature oil province will be open to the highest bid. The intention is that they will go to the highest bid, except where certain minimum requirements in relation to technical competence or financial capability could render such an award imprudent.

Mr. Viggers: The House knows my declarable interest in this subject. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) is correct. in that the tender system may be attractive to the Treasury and the larger oil companies, but it is a major disincentive and disadvantage to the smaller British companies, which the Conservative Party is seeking to support?

Mr. Lawson: I respect the views of my hon. Friend, who is a member of the board of a small British oil company and has a great deal of knowledge in this matter. Nevertheless, it is the Government's judgment that to offer


15 of the total of about 85 blocks for auction is the right balance, bearing in mind the conflicting considerations on both sides.

Mr. Hoyle: What part will the national interest play in this regard? It cannot be in the national interest for multinationals to have the cream, but it appears from the right hon. Gentleman's answers that that will happen under the procedure that he is outlining.

Mr. Lawson: We are talking of 15 blocks out of a total of about 85 on offer. There is no reason to suppose that foreign companies will outbid British companies for the 15. We shall have to wait to see who puts in the highest bid. Despite the hon. Gentleman's sneer at multinational oil companies, they have played a constructive role in the development of the North Sea oil industry, to the benefit of the whole nation.

European Community

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisifed with progress towards the development of a European Community energy policy.

Mr. Mellor: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Knox: Has the Council of Ministers considered the possibility of introducing a common energy policy organised on the same lines as the common agricultural policy? Would not such a policy be of great advantage to this country?

Mr. Mellor: Linking a common energy policy to the CAP does not make it the most attractive proposition. The Community energy policy sets a framework for national energy programmes. We believe that Community action should be taken when necessary to supplement national energy programmes, but they cannot be a substitute.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will the Minister save the country from the disaster suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox)? In doing so will he remember that although there are many subjects on which there is a need for a common European policy, because of Britain's peculiar and strong energy position we are, in many respects, very differently placed from our European partners?

Mr. Mellor: I agree that we are differently placed, but there are many subjects where common interest is rightly shown—for instance, in dealing with our partners with the problem of shortfall of oil supplies, or funding, on a Community basis, research into alternative energy systems, to which we all attach importance. I think that the hon. Gentleman basically agrees with me. We have our own interest, which we must pursue on a domestic basis, but there are problems where it is of the essence that we co-operate with our partners. That is going ahead successfully.

Mr. Forman: My hon. Friend mentioned the Community's role in supplementing national energy policies. Is there any Community contribution that would be useful to this country in support of the development of tidal energy, especially the Severn barrage?

Mr. Mellor: It is too early to talk about any Community involvement in the Severn barrage project, but my hon. Friend will be aware that there is a good record in the Community of dealing with demonstration

projects and researches into alternative energy systems. We are nearing agreement on a further 55 million European currency units to boost the demonstration project programme, and we are also looking to a third four-year research and development programme when the second programme ends next year.

Petrol Prices

Mr. Walter Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will hold discussions with the oil companies over the fluctuating prices of petrol; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Moore: No, Sir. The price of petrol is determined by market conditions.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that during the past month petrol prices have increased by 20p, without comment from either the Minister or his Department? Does he realise that an increase of this sort means real hardship to some motorists, to small business men, and to garage proprietors working on a small profit margin? They have seen prices go up and down almost constantly during the past six months, and up 20p in the last month. Does the Minister realise that this pushes up prices in the shops and the cost of living? When will the Department and the Minister do something about it?

Mr. Moore: Nobody fails to understand the problems associated with price increases, but my Department was not asked to comment between November 1981 and March 1982 when pump prices declined by 21 per cent.

Mr. Robert Atkins: What hope does my hon. Friend hold out for those living in rural areas where small garages, suffering as a result of the increases in petrol prices, may go to the wall and thereby take away facilities from those who most need them?

Mr. Moore: My Departemnt has had considerable experience of trying to assist rural garages, but the rural-urban price disparities that exist are essentially a reflection of retail margins. To that extent, petrol is not dissimilar from other products.

Mr. John Evans: Is the Minister aware that, when crude oil prices are falling, the vast majority of British people feel that they are being ripped off by petrol companies which increase prices at the petrol pumps so substantially? Is it not time that his Department intervened to protect the people from something that will increase inflation?

Mr. Moore: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be happy to help the British people to understand the truth, which is, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that we are paying less in real terms at the pumps than we were in April 1975. It may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman to know that when crude oil prices in 1975 were at $12·50, the equivalent of $18·75 today, they are today at $33·50 a barrel. Difficult problems are always caused to all of us in facing the reality of prices in the market place.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Given the Secretary of State's belief in the infallibility of free market forces, as expressed in his Hutber lecture, will he explain why, with a decrease in demand, petrol prices go up?

Mr. Moore: This may be a perfect opportunity for me to draw the attention of the House as the right hon.
Gentleman has done, to that excellent lecture, published in full in the Sunday Telegraph. My right hon. Friend, as all who understand markets know, is quite right when he says that the market place will ultimately provide.

Mr. Rees: Ultimately.

Mr. Moore: The fluctuations that occur in the interim are associated with declines in prices, but I heard no complaints from the vociferous Labour Front Bench when prices declined.

Standing Charges

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will estimate the yield to British Gas and the Central Electricity Generating Board of receipts from standing charges in the last financial year.

Mr. Mellor: According to the British Gas Corporation and area electricity boards in England and Wales, whose sole responsibility the level of standing charges is, the total revenue raised by standing charges in 1981–82 is estimated to be about £850 million.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he considering pensioners separately in the review of standing charges, which is not yet complete, particularly in cases of proven hardship?

Mr. Mellor: The question of pensioners has exercised us a great deal. More than 1 million pensioners are in receipt of the supplements that have been paid during the lifetime of this Government. We are concerned about pensioners, but my hon. Friend should understand, first, that not all pensioners are poor and, secondly, that not all poor pensioners are small consumers. Therefore, adjusting the standing charges might not help in that respect. The cost of removing the standing charges for all pensioners would be about £300 million which is an enormous amount for anyone to contemplate.

Mr. Palmer: Does the Minister agree that, irrespective of the social arguments, it is in the nature of the economics of electricity supply, where demands must be met instantly, that electricity cannot be sold like little apples, and that, if the standing charges are removed, the revenue must be made up from some other source?

Mr. Mellor: I am grateful, as I often am on matters relating to electricity, to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) for what he said. It is necessary for that view to be put forward to counterbalance other views that are equally sincerely held. Successive investigations of the standing charges theory have shown that there is a justified division between the standing charge and the unit charge. As neither of the industries makes a profit on domestic sales, if the standing charges were abolished the unit charges would have to be increased correspondingly.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my hon. Friend confident that he has taken fully into account the proportion represented by the standing charge of a pensioner's quarterly bill? Does he agree that that relationship has changed over time? We want it pulled back, and the evidence supports a pulling back of that proportion.

Mr. Mellor: In the past, the standing charge, although justified theoretically to be a certain proportion of the industry's costs, was artificially held down. The

industries, of their own motion, decided during the past two to three years to bring the standing charge up to a level that more appropriately reflected the costs involved. We recognise that, but not one area electricity board has a standing charge which truly reflects the underlying costs. Indeed, one board has a standing charge which is 29 per cent. below the underlying costs that should theoretically be attributed to the standing charge.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the Minister aware that there is much anger and concern about standing charges and that electricity boards are becoming more and more out of line every day? Does he realise that the Southern Electricity Board, which serves my area, has just increased the standing charges for credit meters by 16·5 per cent. for pre-payment meters by 17·5 per cent., and for current by only 9·5 per cent? Will he instruct area board chairmen to bring standing charges into line? I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said in answer to the previous question.

Mr. Mellor: Whether or not the hon. Gentle man accepts what I said, the law is the law. We do not have the power—neither did the Labour Government—to make such directions. That is why every answer that we give to questions makes it clear that the matter is exclusively one for the area boards concerned. I think that the hon. Gentleman is saying that people are concerned about the overall cost of electricity. In the dreadful decade 1970 to 1980, the cost of electricity went up by over 500 per cent. I am happy to say that his year's tariff increases overall have been at about 10 per cent. That is the lowest increase for some years. The way to make people happy is to ensure that electricity prices do not increase out of all proportion to the overall rise in the RPI.

Energy Depletion Policy

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what longer-term assumptions on oil and gas reserves in United Kingdom territory are used in deciding shorter-term policies on depletion.

Mr. Lawson: I have taken careful note of the conclusion by the Select Committee on Energy that the Government's involvement in depletion policy should for the present be limited largely to monitoring the rate of production. The latest estimates of reserves are given in my Department's "Brown Book" for 1982.

Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the oil and gas industry takes large investment decisions on long-term investment criteria? His initial response to the Select Committee's report will no doubt be useful in updating the Varley assurances, but when does he expect to make a further response to the Select Committee report, and does he then envisage that he will be in a position to give longer-term assurances on depletion policy?

Mr. Lawson: I hope to be in a position to give my full comments to the Select Committee report on depletion policy within the time scale that has been recommended for such replies. On the Varley assurances, as my hon. Friend will be aware, I have announced that there will be no production cuts before 1985 at the earliest.

Mr. Rowlands: We, too, question a number of aspects of the Select Committee's report, particularly on depletion. Will the Secretary of State confirm his confidence in his Brown Book's reserve assessments,


particularly on gas? Does he agree that we should not embark on a large-scale rapid depletion of our gas reserves in the North Sea, particularly by exporting them to Europe?

Mr. Lawson: The forecasts in the Brown Book are the best that we can make on the knowledge that is available, but, of course, they depend heavily on the incomplete extent of that knowledge. It is my hope and intention that as a result of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, and also as a result of the eighth round of oil and gas licensing, which includes a large number of gas blocks, we shall know much more about the extent of our gas reserves and be in a position to make fuller and better decisions than is possible now.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is still the Government's policy to secure net self-sufficiency for the rest of this century, and will he therefore look with concern at the slow-down in the development of an annex B application which would render us net self-sufficient in the middle 1990s?

Mr. Lawson: It is, of course, desirable to maximise the exploitation of the oil and gas resources of the North Sea. It is impossible to say how long we shall remain self-sufficient. It is also important to make new discoveries to fill in the period beyond the present decade. The right hon. Gentleman should not be too pessimistic about the prospect of an annex B application coming forward in the reasonably near future.

Mr. Forman: In making these difficult estimates about the future, what allowance does my right hon. Friend's Department make for the prospect of significant improvements in enhanced recovery techniques?

Mr. Lawson: The technological development in this industry is of prime importance in trying to assess how much is there and how much is ultimately recoverable. The Brown Book contains no over-optimistic assessment of the developments of technology, but I believe that such developments are likely to continue in the future, as they have in the past.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that only seven countries produced more oil than Britain in 1981 and that at least 20 countries have substantially greater oil reserves than we have? As we tend to produce more or to accelerate our production when the price is falling, is it not clear that our oil depletion policy is being managed with maximum shortsightedness?

Mr. Lawson: Certainly not. If the hon. Gentleman would care to make a case for curtailing our production now and expanding it later and show that that would be in our interest economically, I should be interested to hear it. Certainly no such case has been made.

Electricity Costs

Mr. Stoddart: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will commission and fund a completely independent assessment of electricity generating costs and forecasts.

Mr. Lawson: I am sure that these matters will continue to receive wide scrutiny.

Mr. Stoddart: Yes. However, we should like a wide scrutiny on an independent basis. That is why I ask for an "independent assessment".
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great feeling among people and organisations that the figures produced by the CEGB, and, indeed, accepted by its partners, do not make correct comparisons between the cost of nuclear energy and that produced by fossil fuels? Therefore, again I ask for an independent assessment.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Energy and I know that he has gone into the matter deeply. However, there is a slight confusion implicit in his question. The figures that have been regularly published by the CEGB are historic costs, and, as such, they are accurate. However, historic costs do not provide a good guide to future investment decisions. The CEGB has made that abundantly clear not only in its successive annual reports, but in its statement of case relating to its application to build a pressurised water reactor at Sizewell, which said that cost analysis for future plant must be based on the net effective cost, not on historic cost figures. They are true as far as they go, but they are not the basis on which future decisions are made.

Mr. Durant: In reviewing the costs of the electricity supply industry, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no political interference in the choice of raw materials used by the electricity supply industry?

Mr. Lawson: Yes. I hope that there will be no improper political interference in that matter.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We welcome the breadth of the Sizewell inquiry. In our view, it covers all the questions that need to be asked. However, in the light of that answer and the electricity consumer report that was published today, would it not be more sensible to provide money for an independent analysis of historic costs, and so on? If that is not done, there will be a cry that it was not a proper inquiry into the basic question of atomic energy costing.

Mr. Lawson: I hope and believe that there will be no such grounds for complaint at the end of the day and that no responsible person, such as the right hon. Gentleman, will be moved to make such a complaint.
One of the findings of the consumer report that was published today was that consumers would, in all probability, face higher bills under a nuclear moratorium than they would in a "business as usual" future.

North Sea Gas

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his forecast of North Sea gas supplies.

Mr. John Moore: I expect future supplies of gas to be larger than they otherwise would be, given the market freedom introduced as a result of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill. At the moment, however, the United Kingdom is a major gas importer. Last year, imports totalled 25 per cent. of our supplies.

Mr. Miller: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in developing our North Sea gas reserves, attention should continue to be paid to preserving our industrial capability for producing items such as pipe flanges or fittings? Therefore, will he repeat the assurance that the Offshore Supplies Office will continue to look carefully at this matter and that, in its judgment, it will not be led astray by the cartel for British Steel prices which has resulted in some British manufacturers having to pay more for their raw material than their competitors?

Mr. Moore: I know that my hon. Friend assiduously pursues British companies' interests in this matter with both my Department and the Department of Industry. Those who know the excellent activities of the Offshore Supplies Office will know that full and fair opportunity to compete will be given to British companies. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point and will come back to him on that.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Under-Secretary admit that part of the estimate must be based on our being successful in bidding for Norwegian gas and prohibiting the export of United Kingdom gas?

Mr. Moore: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is correct. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy made it clear in his February statement that we must wait and see what major increase there will be in potential reserves prior to a long-term decision on the export of gas. For the moment, it has been made clear that no further export is expected.

Energy Conservation

Mr. Aspinwall: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the progress being made on energy conservation by British industry.

Mr. Mellor: There has been some encouraging progress in response to our policies of economic pricing of energy backed up by a strong information programme. I shall be publishing very soon the report by Armitage Norton Consultants on the impediments to energy conservation investment to stimulate a wide discussion on how the remaining potential for cost-effective energy conservation investment in industry might best be realised.

Mr. Aspinwall: I thank the Minister for that reply. From the report, I understand that foreign-owned firms have a better record than British-owned firms on energy conservation. What are the Minister's proposals for encouraging British firms to save more energy?

Mr. Mellor: The report showed that, of the companies sampled, foreign-owned firms had a better record than British firms. The report did not say that the British firms were entirely laggard. Indeed, many British firms have a good record. However, the important point to emerge from the report is that the great barrier to energy conservation in industry is attitudes, not an absence of funds. The publicity policies propagated by my Department must address themselves to that.

Mr. Rost: What progress is being made on implementing a scheme for labelling domestic appliances, given that that could make a major contribution to energy conservation?

Mr. Mellor: The Department is considering that matter, and I think that my hon. Friend will hear more about it in the reasonably near future.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, during the past three years, the Tory Government have conserved energy in a way that has resulted in putting 4 million people on the scrap heap? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are now more than 40 million tonnes of coal on the pit tops and that that is mainly the result of 20,000 bankruptcies? Many people have been laid off and, as a result, the energy that should be used to reduce the employment queue is not being used.

Mr. Mellor: I was about to welcome the hon. Gentleman as someone who, belatedly, has become interested in industrial energy conservation. However, it would be inappropriate to stray into the area into which the hon. Gentleman has invited me.

Mr. Edie: Given the answers that I have received to my written questions, it would appear that the hon. Gentleman wishes to keep the progress that he has made on energy conservation a secret. Incidentally, he promised that he would look into that matter. Rayner is to examine the whole question of energy conservation. Will he be motivated by a Government who want to spend more or less on energy conservation? Given Rayner's past performance, less will be spent.

Mr. Mellor: Rayner is to scrutinise the way in which conservation is carried forward and its efficiency.

New Energy Sources

Mr. McNally: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if there has been any recent change in the relative priority his Department gives to the development of new energy sources in comparison with the development of existing sources.

Mr. Tilley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the percentage change between 1981–82 and 1982–83 in public expenditure on research and development into renewable energy resources.

Mr. Mellor: There has been no such change. The total expenditure by my Department on renewable energy sources, including the research and development management services of the energy technology support unit at Harwell, but excluding tidal studies, will fall in 1982–83 by about 11 per cent. from the 1981–82 figure of around £16·3 million.

Mr. McNally: Does not the cut in research and development signify a change in the order of priorities? Are not the Japanese already thinking of putting British research in this area to commercial use? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, despite his earlier remarks about EC involvement in the Severn barrage, there is a feeling that he has boxed himself into nuclear and conventional options although he should be investing in alternative energy sources?

Mr. Mellor: When the hon. Gentleman was advising the Prime Minister three years ago, the amount spent on renewable energy was about one-fifth of what it will be in the coming year. I do not know what interest the hon. Gentleman took in it at that stage, but it is somewhat difficult to accept his criticism today. We have a rolling programme of research into the renewables to arrive at the most promising renewables for use in Britain. The ACORD report, to which I believe the hon. Gentleman refers, is a further step down that road.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Prime Minister (Questions)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will move to appoint a Select Committee to consider extending time for Questions to the Prime Minister.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I have no such proposals to make to the House.

Mr. Winnick: In view of the many questions to the Prime Minister on the Order Paper, only the first four questioners are likely to have an opportunity to put their supplementary questions. As there is an obvious wish to question the Prime Minister on a whole host of topics, is there not a case for extending the time allocated by, perhaps, five minutes?

Mr. Biffen: The situation to which the hon. Gentleman refers derives from the great preference for the open question. If the time were extended by five minutes, that would not greatly alter the present characteristics of Question Time.

Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend continue to stand firm on any extension of Prime Minister's Question Time? It has been harmed by live broadcasting. In spite of the Prime Minister's marvellous answers to all questions, it is not typical of a day's work in the House. There is far more noise during Question Time than at other times.

Mr. Biffen: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Papers (Pagination)

Mr. Dubs: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will raise in the Services Committee the practice of using Roman, rather than Arabic, numerals in paginating parts of House of Commons papers, especially in Select Committee reports, with a view to standardising on Arabic numerals.

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the House of Commons (Services) Committee will be prepared to consider any proposal the hon. Member puts to it on the subject.

Mr. Dubs: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that answer. This is hardly the most burning political issue that is likely to come before the House during this Parliament, but is he aware that it represents a source of confusion to hon. Members, the public and the press? It is often not possible to find a particular page in many Select Committee reports. Will he support the proposal in my question?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about some of the difficulties that derive from the present forms of pagination. While I should like to secure a role as a great reforming Leader of the House, perhaps by obtaining changes in this regard, I should not like to anticipate what might be the conclusions of the House of Commons (Services) Committee when it considers the matter.

Sir John Biggs-Davidson: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there is no disposition to abandon Roman numerals? They are part of the inheritance of European civilisation.

Mr. Biffen: That is the sort of weighty issue that should be considered by the Services Committee and, mercifully, not by me alone.

Bridge Street Site

Mr. Hooley: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he has given consideration recently to the

Casson report on providing extra accommodation for hon. Members, and the proposed redevelopment of the Bridge Street site.

Mr. Biffen: The House of Commons (Services) Committee recently invited the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee to look into the possibility of securing the assistance of private funds in the implementation of Sir Hugh Casson's plans.

Mr. Hooley: Would it not be rather degrading for the House of Commons to depend on private funds for the accommodation that a modern democratic legislature requires? Will the right hon. Gentleman again look at the matter with a view to making proper provision for the British Parliament from the funds provided by the taxpayer for it to do its job?

Mr. Biffen: The most prudent course would be to await the report of the Sub-Committee that is considering the problem.

Sir Anthony Fell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if this proliferation of Committees continues, hon. Members will not need any offices?

Mr. Biffen: I note that point, although I am not quite sure what conclusion my hon. Friend wishes me to draw.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Leader of the House realise that if we got rid of the other place our accommodation problems would be solved at a stroke?

Mr. Biffen: That is an interesting point of view, but it would be inappropriate to engage in debate on that matter from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there could be a considerable advantage in using private investment for such accommodation and that it could be done under a lease—back system? Is he aware that if the choice is between public funds never being made available to provide decent office accommodation and making office accommodation possible through private funds, we would find the latter preferable?

Mr. Biffen: Those factors are being considered by the Sub-Committee of the Services Committee.

Government Publicity

Mr. Adley: asked the Lord President of the Council what criteria affect the number of staff in his Department who deal with Government publicity.

Mr. Biffen: The number of staff in my Department, as in any other, is determined by the volume of business.

Mr. Adley: In the light of that Delphic answer, may I ask whether the Falkland Islands issue led my right hon. Friend to increase his staff? Does his Department have any links with the Ministry of Defence when dealing with national publicity? Given the way in which returning newsmen have criticised the Ministry of Defence's role in dealing with what was, in effect, the Government's and the nation's publicity, does my right hon. Friend consider it worth while, in the television era, to review the steps that should be taken to handle publicity in these circumstances or in the unhappy event of another Falklands-type issue? In that way, we could try to cope with criticisms about censorship and see whether they are justified.

Mr. Biffen: My Department's role in that respect is to co-ordinate the information services of other Government


Departments. In that context, we were, of course, in touch with the Ministry of Defence. Although we could clearly hold a productive inquest into how our performance in the South Atlantic was portrayed to the public at home and overseas, I should have thought that it was a remarkable tribute to the way in which information services had been carried out that public opinion was consolidated in such a preponderant majority in favour of the enterprise.

Mr. English: Is it true that a broadcast was made to Argentina in Spanish from the Government's radio station on Ascension Island at the same time as British correspondents and the British media were being forbidden to broadcast it in Britain?

Mr. Biffen: I was not aware of that fact, but I shall inquire into the matter and let the hon. Gentleman have further information.

Members (Accommodation)

Mr. Stoddart: asked the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members have office accommodation in single rooms.

Mr. Biffen: The number of Members who have office accommodation in single rooms is 247.

Mr. Stoddart: Does that not betray a very unsatisfactory situation? If the House were subject to the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, might not the Leader of the House and Mr. Speaker be liable for prosecution in the courts? Will he urgently review arrangements for office accommodation, bring forward the Casson report, and not allow private enterprise to be a drag on its implementation.

Mr. Biffen: The number of single rooms available in the House has increased from 89 in 1971 to 247 in 1982.
I cannot think that that shows that the authorities have been sluggish in trying to improve accommodation for hon. Members. I do not regard it as axiomatic that it is in the interests of Parliament that every hon. Member should have his own battery cage.

Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Middle Ages the ecclesiastical tradition in the House was Benedictine rather than Carthusian and that it would be greatly deplored if we all lived as single monks in our own cells?

Mr. Biffen: As someone who had many happy parliamentary years at a desk in Cloister Court, I say "Amen" to that.

Mr. Hooley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while hon. Members' accommodation is unsatisfactory, the accommodation for their staff is atrocious? Will he adopt a more constructive and positive attitude towards that problem than he appears to be taking?

Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but it must be clearly understood that the improvements that he has in mind would cost a considerable amount. It is by no means clear that the entire Chamber agrees with him about the importance of hon. Members, their research assistants and secretaries having individual rooms.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: How are those 247 golden people chosen? Are they chosen on the basis of Buggins' turn or from among those who have been particularly good in obeying their Whips, whether in Government or in Opposition?

Mr. Biffen: They are chosen by the Whips. I leave the process by which they are chosen to my hon. Friend's imagination.

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1982.
2. Children's Homes Act 1982.
3. Planning Inquiries (Attendance of Public) Act 1982.
4. Gaming (Amendment) Act 1982.
5. Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982.
6. Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982.
7. Thomas Brown and Sons, Limited Act 1982.
8. Hong Kong and China Gas Company PLC Act 1982.

Assisted Areas (Review)

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on regional industrial policy. Copies of the statement are available in the Vote Office.
When my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Industry made his statement on 17 July 1979 announcing the results of the Government's review of regional industrial policy, he undertook that those former special development areas and development areas which were due to become non-assisted from 1 August 1982 would be subject to a special review before the changes finally took place.
Since then, there has been a very substantial increase in unemployment nationwide. The increase has formed the basis of a large number of representations which the Government have received in respect of many areas from hon. Members, local authorities and others, seeking improvements in those areas' assisted area status. Therefore, as well as conducting the special review, which was confined to the areas which are due to lose assisted area status by two or more stages, we have looked carefully at a number of other areas whose circumstances seem to have deteriorated relatively to the country as a whole.
The changes announced by my right hon. Friend three years ago had the effect of reducing the proportion of the population covered by assisted areas from over 40 per cent. to about 26 per cent. We believe that changes on the scale proposed then are broadly right so that the fact that unemployment has increased substantially in a particular area does not of itself qualify that area for upgrading. Any further adjustments should be concentrated on those areas whose position has deteriorated markedly relative to the rest of the country. This is necessary both to contain the cost of regional aid within acceptable limits and to provide industry with reasonable stability for its investment decisions.
The further adjustments, therefore, which we now propose as the outcome of our review are relatively few. Nevertheless, I am very grateful to all those who supplied us with much valuable information and advice in support of their representations and I can assure the House that they have all been considered with great care.
We have concluded that four of the Scottish travel-to-work-areas which would have lost assisted area status by two or more stages since 1979 should retain their assisted status. These areas are Lerwick, Kirkwall, Forres and Nairn which will now retain the intermediate area status which they received on 1 August 1980. All have particular problems arising largely from their remoteness from economic centres, and thus they warrant the retention of some of the incentives to industrial investment which go with assisted area status. For Great Britain as a whole, however, we are satisfied that assisted area status for the remaining areas subject to the special review is no longer justified and the Government intend, as we announced in 1979, to withdraw that status from them after 31 July.
After careful consideration, there are a few other changes which we think it right to propose. The travel-to-work-areas concerned are Teesside, which will become a special development area; Rochdale and Rossendale, which will be designated development areas; Llanelli and


Pontypool, which are currently part development area and part intermediate area and which will become uniformly development areas; and Bolton, Leigh and Northwich which will retain intermediate area status. Apart from these changes, the Government intend that the decisions regarding the assisted areas announced by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State in July 1979 will be implemented without further change. Thus from 1 August this year the coverage of the assisted areas will be around 27 per cent. of the working population in the areas with the most persistent problems of high unemployment. We are notifying the European Commission of these changes in accordance with our Community obligations.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be announcing separate proposals covering the remote and sparsely populated area of Mid-Wales—[H0N. MEMBERS: "How?"]—in a written answer today.
The House will recall that in 1980, following a review of derelict land clearance areas, the Government announced that a number of employment office areas which are due to become non-assisted areas from 1 August 1982 would be designated as derelict land clearance areas. As a result of the decision regarding the assisted areas which I am announcing this afternoon, some of those areas will not now become non-assisted areas and thus will not need to be designated as derelict land clearance areas. The Government have, however, decided to designate additionally the Nuneaton and Bedworth employment office areas as derelict land clearance areas.
The necessary orders to give effect to the decisions will be laid before the House shortly.
When my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State made his announcement three years ago, he committed the Government to a policy of reducing the unacceptable differences in economic performance between different parts of the country. In carrying this out, we must aim at getting value for money by concentrating help where the need is greatest. It made no sense then—and it would make no sense now—for regional aid to be spread thinly across nearly half the population. Nevertheless, it is right to take account of changed circumstances and, where there has been a marked relative deterioration in particular parts of the country, it is right to adjust the boundaries of the assisted areas to reflect this. I therefore commend my proposals to the House.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Is the Secretary of State aware that, against the background of more than 3 million unemployed and increasing closures in industry, a 1 per cent. increase, in view of the cuts made in 1979, is unacceptable? We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has seen fit to reprieve some areas, but other areas will suffer. We do not accept that it is a question of spreading money thinly. What has been spread widely across the nation is unemployment and the Secretary of State has a responsibility to do something about that. What is the estimate of new jobs that will be created by his proposals?
What will be the additional total expenditure as opposed to the £233 million that was cut by the former Secretary of State in 1979? How many areas are not covered by the changes and where are they? Will the Secretary of State place a full list and details in the Library?
Why cannot the statement about Wales be made in the House? The Secretary of State has mentioned two areas in

Wales. Why cannot the information about the areas in Mid and Central Wales be given to the House in the normal way?
Against the background of the problems facing British manufacturing industry, the CBI's statement today to the effect that prospects are worsening, that unemployment will increase, that the demand for manufactured products remains weak at home and for exports, and that there is the possibility of only 1 per cent. growth, when will the Government do something about the economy and industry?

Mr. Jenkin: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is difficult to measure with precision the effectiveness of any measure of regional aid. Such evidence as exists suggests that it is more effective if it is concentrated directly on the areas of greatest need. To take one example, the signs are that more jobs were created in the assisted areas in the late 1960s and early 1970s than when coverage became wider through the creation of intermediate areas. For that reason, I believe that it is right to retain a policy of concentrating help on the areas of greatest need.
Of course, I acknowledge that unemployment has risen, but the right hon. Gentleman should recognise that it has risen very steeply in other major industrialised countries. For instance, the latest figures from the Department of Employment show that in the three months to May this year unemployment increased by 2 per cent. in the United Kingdom, by 10 per cent. in West Germany, by 10 per cent. in the United States and by 19 per cent. in Canada.
It is impossible to estimate the number of new jobs that are likely to emerge from any regional policy, but the evidence suggests that the policy for the regions and the areas of greatest need will assist in the creation of employment.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about expenditure. The actual expenditure for 1981–82 was about £850 million. The estimate for 1982–83, on a cash basis, is £768 million. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to put full lists in the Library. I shall look into that to discover the most effective way of doing it, because I should like to help the House in that regard.
The right hon. Gentleman is being a little churlish about Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is today answering a question setting out in some detail the powers that he proposes to use within the area of the Development Board for Rural Wales in the sparsely populated areas of Mid-Wales. The answer is detailed, and I should have thought that that was an appropriate way of dealing with the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the economy. I am sure that he will cheer the declining level of inflation. I hope that he will cheer the increasing evidence that we are now through the worst of the recession. I know that he will take comfort from the fact that this Government at least will not have to imitate the Government of France in going back to the policies with which we became familiar in the late 1960s.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Another statement is to follow. Today is a Supply day, which means that the Opposition have chosen the subject for debate. I propose to allow questions on this statement to run until five minutes past four. If they are brief, a fair number of hon. Members should be able to ask questions.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision following the deputation to the Minister of State to retain intermediate area status for the Northwich travel-to-work area will be extremely welcome locally? Is he also aware that in an area where there has been growing unemployment it will greately help the local district councils in their efforts to widen the employment base of their areas?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. We certainly listen to such points.

Mr. John Morris: Is not the House entitled to know whether Mid-Wales is to be downgraded or upgraded? Is the Secretary of State aware that the Neath river is causing great concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) and myself because there may be a difficulty in the BP Chemicals proposal to build an export terminal? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that project may suffer because it will not be eligible for full Government grant as it may be marginally outside a special development area? Will he examine that again?

Mr. Jenkin: I thought that I had made it clear—if I did not, I apologise—that the areas in Mid-Wales are not retaining intermediate area status. For that reason, my right hon. Friend is making proposals for the use of certain of his powers under the Development Board for Rural Wales. My right hon. Friend is answering in detail a written question on the matter. I should have thought that the House would think it reasonable to wait for the answer.
On the question of the availability of development area status for Wales, whereas in England the proportion of population which will retain development area status is 16½ per cent., in Wales it remains 93·9 per cent. I do not think that Wales is doing too badly.

Mr. Alex Pollock: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be warmly welcomed? Does he agree that the review illustrates that the process is not just sham consultation but underlines the Government's capacity for economic flexibility and change?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Those travel-to-work areas in the far north of Scotland face real problems because they are peripheral to the main centres of industrial activity.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Is the Secretary of State aware that the House is, from time to time, thankful for small mercies from this Government—very small mercies indeed? May I remind him that the Leigh constituency is an integral part of the Wigan metropolitan area which was given full development area status under the last assisted area proposals? May I further remind him that his predecessor told a North-West delegation that there was some hope? That hope has turned to hopelessness in relation to unemployment. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that today, as then, the Government's industrial strategy is abysmal?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is beng a little churlish. Leigh is one of the areas which we have decided should retain intermediate area status. We undertook to review the suggestion that it should be made a non-assisted area and we have decided to keep it as an assisted area. That properly reflects the needs of the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. Clement Freud: While the cosmetic tinkering will be welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith)—[HON MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]—Does the Secretary of State accept that the areas are designated by the catchment areas of jobcentres, and that the facility of administration and not the needs of an area take first place? What does he intend to do about that?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The specially designated travel-to-work areas, not the employment offices, have been the basis for industrial regional policy under successive Governments. That is intended to reflect as nearly as possible levels of unemployment in an area which can be said to be within a single travel-to-work zone. That is the proper basis on which to found regional industrial policy, and we have stood by that. It is generally recognised that the changes that we have made have benefited constituencies represented by hon. Members from all parties.

Mr. D. A. Trippier: I thank my right hon. Friend for recognising the need to designate Rossendale a development area. Is he aware that it will be warmly welcomed by the local authority and especially by the Rossendale Community Enterprise Trust, which has worked hard to attact new industry to the valley?

Mr. Jenkin: I visited my hon. Friend's constituency and was struck by the determination of his constituents to do everything possible to help themselves. I examined all the factors and decided to grant development area status to Rossendale.

Mr. John Roper: Does the Secretary of State accept that, although the adjustments will be welcomed in the areas that are affected—I welcome the change for Bolton—the proposals fail to tackle the substantial increase in unemployment in the North-West and other regions? Will he bring forward proposals soon to tackle the increase in unemployment?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman does not recognise the fact that, of the limited changes that I have made, five were in the North-West region. We examined the problems of that region with great care. We recognised the serious problems of Merseyside, West Cumbria, Rochdale and Rossendale. We considered carefully the arguments put forward by the North-East Lancashire Development Association, but many of the arguments were not sufficient to lead us to depart from the practice of successive Governments of designating assisted areas by reference to travel-to-work areas. The North-West has not done too badly out of the review, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will recognise the fact.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although the people of Rochdale and Rossendale, some of whom are my constituents, will be grateful for the upgrading to development area status, they regret the reasons that led to it—the massive increase is unemployment and the sad decline in the textile industry? Now that the area has development area status, will he ensure that he will give rather better assistance in the claiming of EEC grants than he has in the past?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's welcome. We intend to make the maximum


use of the European regional development fund. I am advised that we shall take up our full quota. We shall see what we can do to help the areas that face considerable problems, including the right hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. David Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even in the South-East, which is relatively prosperous compared with the rest of Britain, there are some pockets of resistance, especially on the North Kent coast, with the prospect of the closure of Chatham dockyard, and further along the coast in Herne Bay, where unemployment has already reached 22 per cent.? Can my right hon. Friend offer any flexibility to help such pockets of unemployment and lack of opportunity?

Mr. Jenkin: I have detected almost no pressure from areas in the South-East to be accorded assisted area status. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that those areas also have pockets of high unemployment. Chatham and the Medway towns are examples. That is why we designated the Medway area an experimental area for the special scheme to help those who wished to set up on business on their own. I remind my hon. Friend that for major industrial projects all the powers of section 8 of the Industry Act 1972 remain available. I have made that clear to those in the area who seek reassurance from my Department.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Is the Secretary of State aware that my constituents in Nuneaton—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Is it Nuneaton or Wigan?"] I thought that someone was about to pay tribute to my success. Is the Secretary of State aware that my constituents in Nuneaton and Bedworth, the local authorities in Nuneaton, Bedworth borough council, Warwickshire county council and the members of deputations with which I have been involved, will be grateful for what he has said? However, is he also aware that, although derelict land clearance area status has now been granted to Nuneaton and Bedworth, it is only a small crumb of comfort to the entire Coventry area? Is he further aware that he must be at least as reassuring about continued support to Coventry-based industries, especially British Leyland and Rolls-Royce?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman may recognise that one reason why we did not feel it right to make any move in the West Midlands, apart from the move in his constituency, was partly that industrialists in the area have not sought assisted area status. Also, many people in the area recognise that, in our policies in support of British Leyland and other such companies, the Government have invested large sums of money that has done much to preserve employment in the West Midlands and elsewhere. People in the area should recognise that, because it has not been done without considerable cost to the taxpayer, all of which must be found by the country at large.

Mr. Hal Miller: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the major part of the British Leyland money goes by no means to the West Midlands but to the North-West, Scotland and many other areas? Does he further accept that in the West Midlands—an area with the highest rising unemployment in Britain and disadvantaged more recently, as he suggested in his statement—we support the reduction in the number of

assisted areas because we believe that the way forward is by a sectoral policy? How effective are the funds on regional policy compared with the funds distributed on his sectoral policies that we greatly support?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's recognition that most West Midlands industrialists would much rather see the burden that regional industrial policy lays on the West Midlands relieved than that the regions should join the ranks of assisted areas. That is what the Government are doing. I remind my hon. Friend that last December we suspended the industrial development certificate scheme, a move that was widely welcomed in the West Midlands.
It is difficult to quantify precisely the employment effect of different measures. Although regional development assistance may have as one of its primary aims the creation of employment in areas of high unemployment, many of the sectoral schemes that we support—for example, in information technology, robotics, microprocessors and computer-assisted design—have as their primary aim the modernisation of the capacity of British industry to compete in world markets. Although that will have a major impact on employment in the near future and in the long term, the measures are not aimed at creating immediate short-term jobs. It is a little difficult to make the comparison that my hon. Friend has asked me to make.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Does the Secretary of State recall that, when his predecessor made his statement in July 1979, he suggested that loss of assisted area status could be interpreted as a sign of hope? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement today will transform any feeling of hope in Manchester to one of anxiety and despair? Does he accept that to base the designation of assisted area status on unemployment in travel-to-work areas is a statistical nonsense? In Manchester it produces a position where Moss Side, which has 34 per cent. unemployment, is lumped together with Wilmslow in the Cheshire stockbroker belt, where unemployment is insignificant.

Mr. Jenkin: I am not sure on what the right hon. Gentleman suggests we could base regional policy if not on travel-to-work areas. Unemployment in the Manchester travel-to-work area—

Mr. Morris: What about Moss Side?

Mr. Jenkin: —grievous though it is, is below the average for intermediate areas generally. In those circumstances, it would have been inappropriate to have retained assisted areas status for Manchester and its immediate environs, because it would have spread the available money too thinly and not concentrated help on the areas of greatest need.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Given the need to help areas of high unemployment, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the way in which regional aid is dispensed is the most cost-effective in terms of results and cost to the taxpayer?

Mr. Jenkin: When my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State made his statement three years ago, he committed the Government to maintaining to the end of this Parliament the broad shape of the regional policy that he announced. We shall have to see to what extent we are getting value for money. As I said to the right hon.
Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), it is extremely difficult to be precise about the effects of specific measures when one has a range of measures aiming to help unemployment in the regions. On the whole, we are satisfied that the policy works more effectively the more it is concentrated on the areas of greatest need.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Is the Secretary of State aware that this mouse of a statement shows a scandalous disregard for the problems of the Scottish economy and flatly contradicts the assurance given by the Minister responsible for industry in Scotland that there would be changes in the pattern of regional development assistance in the central belt of Scotland? As the Government have failed to take on board the fact that unemployment in the Edinburgh travel-to-work area is rising faster than in Scotland as a whole and in the United Kingdom as a whole, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he has ruled out the possibility of another review of the areas that have been downgraded by two stages in the lifetime of this Parliament?

Mr. Jenkin: The level of unemployment in the Edinburgh travel-to-work area, at 11·1 per cent., is lower than the national average, so it would have been a bizarre decision to extend assisted area status to it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that in the recession, which has affected the whole nation, the deterioration in Scotland has been less serious than that in the country as a whole. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Yes. The figures are clear. They have been given in many debates by my right hon. and hon. Friends who are Ministers in the Scottish Office. The deterioration has been less serious in Scotland, which has weathered the recession better than the country as a whole. In those circumstances, to have gone back on the 1979 statement and extended assisted area status to substantial areas in Scotland would have been a retrograde step.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Preston will understand and support, as I do, the policy that he has enunciated, provided that he can assure me on two matters? First, can he take steps to improve the chances of Preston and other places in getting European moneys, to which they are entitled, when assisted area status is taken away? Secondly, is my right hon. Friend or his Department prepared to support profitable and expert projects such as the P110 at British Aerospace?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend knows that the European development fund moneys are confined to areas of the country that qualify for assisted area status. Of course, other European moneys under the European social fund, the European Investment Bank, and the non-quota section of the European regional development fund can be available for areas outside the assisted areas. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said about that matter. He mentioned high technology projects, for example, the aircraft proposals, for which launch aid is being sought. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are considering those matters. Decisions will be announced in due course.

Mr. Jack Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that his decision today will be treated with anger and incomprehension by thousands of people in North-East Lancashire, whose lives have been ruined by the

Government's catastrophic policies? Is he aware that there are 13 assisted areas with lower unemployment rates than Blackburn and that in the past two months unemployment in Blackburn has risen by 900 and now stands at over 10,000? What reason is there, apart from political chicanery, for the Government denying assisted area status to the whole of North-East Lancashire, apart from Rossendale, when the Government have continued to give it to Blackpool, which has a lower unemployment rate?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman does his case no good by using exaggerated language. I utterly refute his final suggestion. The changes that I have announced have benefited constituencies represented by members of every political party. The hon. Gentleman referred to the North-East Lancashire development area, which is covered by the North East Lancashire Development Association. I considered extremely carefully the representations that NELDA made to me, but I was not persuaded that it would be right to depart from the policy pursued by successive Governments—that we decide regional policy on the basis of travel-to-work areas. We must look at individual areas and their history and future prospects, taking everything into account. It is for that reason that we felt that Rossendale stood out as an area that needed to retain assisted area status.
I understand the anxiety that the level of unemployment in Blackburn causes the hon. Gentleman, but it is below the average for intermediate areas as a whole. With regard to the area on the Fylde coast, the House will have noticed that we have announced no futher downgradings anywhere. The relative levels of unemployment vary from year to year. They were high on the Fylde coast in 1979. Because it would have been necessary to give at least a year's notice of further downgrading, the Government decided as a matter of policy that the review would not involve any further downgrading.

Mr. Alec Woodall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am in difficulty because I do not wish in any way to criticise you, Mr. Speaker, but in the statement there has been not one mention of crumbs or anything else for Yorkshire and Humberside and not one Yorkshire Member has been called to ask the Secretary of State a question. In Yorkshire and Humberside, especially in my constituency, there are some of the worst unemployment spots in the country. We have not had a chance to question the Secretary of State, which is disgraceful. It is time that the Government did something for Yorkshire.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall in a moment call the Opposition Front Bench speaker, who will speak for the whole country, as the hon. Gentleman will understand. On these occasions it is impossible to cover every constituency. I have tried to be fair. Because I understood the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings, I allowed him to make his point, although it was not strictly a point of order. I think that the House understood completely that he wanted to make that statement on behalf of Yorkshire.

Mr. Peter Hardy: On an entirely different point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are entitled to do this, Mr. Speaker, but each time you fix a time when the consideration of a statement will be concluded, Ministers and their supporters tailor the length of their contributions to reduce the opportunities available for Opposition Members to ask questions.

Mr. Speaker: In order to avoid any feeling about that, in future, instead of fixing a time, I shall resort to my custom of saying that I shall take four or five questions from either side and watch the clock, which would prevent that.

Dr. Keith Hampson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You know that I do not badger you with points of order, but it is only just to the textile industry of Yorkshire to record that several hon. Members on both sides have been trying to intervene to put the case for the unemployed in the Yorkshire textile areas.

Mr. Speaker: There are other hon. Members who represent other industries and constituencies as well, but the statement must come to a conclusion at some time.

Mr. Ioan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are aware that several hon. Members from Welsh constituencies have been trying to catch your eye because of the way in which the Principality has been treated. Would it not be helpful for the House if the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland also made statements so that those areas could be dealt with?

Mr. Speaker: The first Member I called was the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who is a former Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. John Prescott: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement has more than the smell of the pork barrel about it? Does he agree that unemployment is no longer limited to a few regions as a result of the Government's policies? Is he aware that unemployment has doubled to 3 million, the South-East has nearly 1 million unemployed and the West Midlands is a candidate for special development area status as a

direct result of the Government's policies? Does he agree that to talk of reducing the number of areas and the amounts of money by £230 million to enable resources to be more thickly distributed is an insult to the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed?
Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by talking about a regional policy within acceptable limits, as unemployment appears no longer to be the main criterion by which assessment is made? Does he agree that regional policy should be reviewed on the basis of mass unemployment throughout the United Kingdom rather than on selected areas as seems to have been the case with his irrelevant statement?

Mr. Jenkin: No doubt the hon. Gentleman feels better for having got that off his chest. I have never said that unemployment is irrelevant to regional policy. As I made perfectly clear in my statement, the fact that unemployment has increased in a given area is not of itself a reason for changing its assisted area status. If regional policy is to mean anything, one must take into account such factors as unemployment and remoteness of an area relative to the rest of the country. Such areas are represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I resent the hon. Gentleman's accusation about pork barrel politics. It is completely unfounded. I believe that we have made reasonable decisions. I never thought that I would please the whole House. It is not sensible for nearly half of the country to be covered by regional policy. That would make nonsense of regional policy. We have made the right decision.
As for the comments that have been made about Yorkshire and Humberside, 40 per cent. of the working population there remains in assisted areas. That is not too bad.

British Rail and London Transport (Disputes)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about industrial action on British Rail and London Transport.
As the House knows, the National Union of Railwaymen is now on strike both on British Rail and the London Transport underground. Nine London bus garages have also joined in.
The NUR strikes have not been total. Limited services have been running in a number of areas including some into London, but without rail or underground services the major routes into London have been heavily overloaded with substantial delays, particularly in East and South-East London. Hundreds of thousands of people suffered enormous inconvenience this morning. I congratulate all of them on the initiative and effort that they have shown in getting to work. The help being given by the police, the motoring organisations and the radio stations is also appreciated.
The Government's view is that the strikes constitute a wholly pointless and unwarranted assault on the travelling public. They should be called off without further delay before irretrievable damage is done, not least to the railway system. I understand that the general secretary of the NUR has called ACAS in to help, at 12 hours' notice, But plainly the first requirement is that the NUR and ASLEF should deliver on the productivity arrangements for which they have already been paid and which emerged from the intervention of ACAS last summer. All who want to see a modern and efficient railway should support the British Railways Board in getting these promises on productivity delivered.
On London Transport, the pretext for the strike was flimsy in the extreme. London Transport had already called a cooling-off period for further discussions on its proposals for timetable changes. Negotiations on pay were still in their early stages. There are no grounds whatsoever for throwing over the normal negotiating procedures as the NUR has done.
In full co-operation with the Metropolitan Police steps have already been taken to help ease the traffic situation in London. In addition to 8,000 extra car parking spaces being provided in central London, arrangements by the Ministry of Defence are now in hand to provide a further 3,500 places in Hyde Park and Regents Park. Parking restrictions and parking meters have been suspended in all side streets. Special efforts are being made to keep the radial routes free of obstruction. Road works are being suspended wherever possible within 60 miles of central London. Businesses will be asked to minimise heavy goods movements during the rush hours.
In addition, it is essential that people stagger their working hours and, above all, ensure that cars are full and that journeys are shared. We stand ready to introduce all necessary further measures to help the flow of traffic and to ensure that Britain keeps moving. I will keep the House fully informed.

Mr. Albert Booth: Does the Secretary of State accept that his primary responsibility is to take those actions which are open to him to keep all

transport services, including the railways, running? In view of that, has he approached either the British Railways Board or the National Union of Railwaymen, or both, with a view to finding an acceptable basis for the settlement of the dispute? Were his provocative and intemperate broadcasts during the weekend calculated to worsen the atmosphere in the dispute, thus making it harder to settle?
Was the Secretary of State's reference to Sidney Weighell, the general secretary of the NUR, asking for the help of ACAS at 12 hours' notice intended to represent fairly the general secretary's actions last week to try to obtain useful results from the ACAS initiative?
The Opposition strongly regret the inconvenience to the travelling public and the damage that the dispute will do to British industry. Nevertheless, the 5 per cent. offer, five months after the due settlement date, can be regarded as hardly adequate, even without the existence of the strings that are attached to it.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Government's record of running down investment in British Rail has undermined the confidence of the railway work force about the future of their industry? Moreover, does he accept that it has wrecked the understanding that existed between the unions and the board about productivity and investment being linked? Will he acknowledge the repeated warnings that he has been given from this Dispatch Box that the consequences of the Government reneging on their responsibilities to the railways would culminate in the present strike?

Mr. Howell: I note and welcome the right hon. Gentleman's regret about the terrible inconvenience that has been caused to hundreds of thousands of people, many families and many people who are unable to protect themselves. However, the necessary intervention should be with some of the hotheads in the NUR executive. Mr. Sidney Weighell himself called them "a squawking Left-wing rabble". It is to them that advice should be addressed to prevent the union executive from leading the industry and the thousands of workers in it over the cliff edge. The right hon. Gentleman has a part to play in such intervention.
Pay increases are a matter for the British Railways Board. The right hon. Gentleman will not have forgotten that British Rail employees enjoyed a 20 per cent. wage increase two years ago and an 11 per cent. increase last year. That compounds up to a 33⅞ per cent. wage increase in the past two years. Many other people would have been grateful for such an increase. It is a considerable increase. The 11 per cent. last year was 8 per cent. pay plus 3 per cent. in return for promises to increase productivity. The NUR agreed to the flexible rosters and in recognition of that was given yet a further pay increase. It is only reasonable that the British Railways Board should seek delivery of the promises made last year before settling this year's pay arrangements.
Investment and productivity go hand in hand. Ten major projects have been completed or approved and eight more are in the pipeline. If such projects are to go ahead and there is to be more investment in British Rail, they must go hand in hand with modern work practices, as similar schemes have done in every Continental railway system. Let the right hon. Gentleman give that message to the unions. We should then see working properly the new equipment that has already been built and on which


taxpayers' money has been spent which would give us confidence that we have a railway system for the future that will be worked in a modern way.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Is not the Opposition's position extraordinary, when the London Transport strike reflects a total abrogation of accepted procedures by the NUR? Why have not the Opposition condemned this situation, which makes further negotiation meaningless? Will my right hon. Friend explain why we now have a strike on London Transport buses for which there is equally no justification?

Mr. Howell: My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. I listened to the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) for words of condemnation of a strike that has been called over pay and without due notice. Pay discussions were continuing and no final offer had been made or discussed. I suspect that the strike has little to do with industrial relations and everything to do with an opportunity to try to strangle London.
It appears that the strike on the buses is in sympathy with the other strikes. There seems to be a general desire to inflict the maximum inconvenience on Londoners and London Transport users. I look—some hon. Members may say in vain—to the responsible public authority, the GLC to put the London Transport scene in order again, which is within its power.

Mr. Harry Cowans: How will the Minister's statement help to end the dispute? Is he aware that he has made provocative statements about a union executive that has already agreed to give up thousands of jobs with little return? Would it not make more sense if he refrained from saying the sort of things that he has said on the radio and in the House and freely admitted that he bears some responsibility because of the promised investment which has not been forthcoming? Would it not make sense and be mannerly if he called the parties together, pledged the investment and sought a settlement?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman carries influence and is dedicated to the interests of the railways and the NUR. I repeat the words of Sidney Weighell, the general secretary, who called the immoderate elements who have pushed the union down dangerous paths "a squawking Left-wing rabble". The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues and friends in the NUR and in the Labour Party have as much a duty as the rest of us to support the moderate elements and to ensure that the "rabble" is not allowed to lead tens of thousands of dedicated railwaymen over the cliff edge and do permanent damage to the railway industry, which none of us wants to happen.

Mr. Robert Adley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that I am one of the keenest supporters of railway modernisation and find it hard to regard the NUR's action as anything other than utterly obstructionist, when the taxpayer and the Government have put in £150 million to provide a new electric service on the Bedford to St. Pancras line and the equipment is just lying about because the union will not operate the system, even though it was agreed when the trains were being designed? Will my right hon. Friend bring it home to Mr. Weighell and many other union members that it is ironic that those who support the Labour Party are helping to destroy part of the public sector and

that it is the private sector that is doing everything it can to alleviate the difficulties and to keep the country on the move at work?

Mr. Howell: The failure to agree sensible manning levels on the new electric trains for Bedford is just one example where investment has been made but the productivity agreement has not matched it. The key to investment is better performance by British Rail. That will encourage resources for the further investment that I should like to see and ensure that the industry is modernised. But hand in hand with that, we need the work practices of 1982 and not of 1919.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Is it not time to refer the unions' pay claim to the Railway Staff National Tribunal, which is the industry's arbitration body? Should not the Minister have by now advised the unions to lake the claim to that body? May I appeal to the Minister to intervene in the dispute, as Governments have intervened time and again over the years? Is he not anxious about the hundreds of thousands of commuters who are suffering sheer hell? Is he aware that hundreds of thousands of railwaymen want nothing to do with the dispute and that it is right for him to intervene to try to end it?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great experience. I am sure that he is right. Many members of the railway unions want nothing to do with the dispute. I believe that between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent in some areas have today reported for work. They realise the dangerous course on which the union executive is leading them. The referral of the pay claim to the Railway Staff National Tribunal is for the parties to the claim. As the British Railways Board warned, however, at the moment, there is no pay offer. It said that the existing pay offer of 5 per cent. from September would be withdrawn if there was industrial strife. It has been withdrawn.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Does not the Minister have a crucial role to play? He states that he is ready to introduce all necessary measures to help the flow of traffic and ensure that Britain keeps moving. Instead of continuing to make provocative statements—I certainly do not dissent from his view about London Transport—should he not try to bring the three parties—British Rail management, the unions and the Government on behalf of the public—together lo seek a solution to this extraordinarily damaging crisis?

Mr. Howell: It is difficult to see why it should be considered provocative for the public to wish to protect themselves and for the Government to take all necessary measures to minimise the hardship against the declared strikes which I do not believe the hon. Gentleman would argue are soundly based industrial disputes. Because of the London Transport strikes many children are not getting to school, people cannot visit their relatives, holidays are smashed and other hopes are ruined, all for a purpose that the public find it hard to fathom. I should like to hear the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and other leaders of his party challenge the union on why it has inflicted misery on tens of thousand of people. That is a reasonable and not a provocative question.

Sir David Price: Will my right hon. Friend impress on the NUR leaders that the future welfare of its members depends on the good will of the travelling public? As he represents the many frustrated members of


the public who are "yomping" their way round London in the rain, will he explain to Mr. Weighell that he has little reciprocal good will from us at present?

Mr. Howell: I shall do that. I believe that Mr. Weighell understands that, but some members of his executive do not. The longer they remain in ignorance, the more danger there is to the industry's future.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Will the Secretary of State accept that since he and his right hon. Friends fixed both the external finance limit and the public service obligation grant to British Rail, which have been reduced in real terms, he cannot escape his responsibility? His only contribution so far in this dispute has been to stand on the sidelines calling others names. Does he not accept that the action he has taken and his remarks have only served to make matters far worse?

Mr. Howell: The difficulty is that the hon. Gentleman, who intervenes often in railway issues, purveys incorrect facts to many people who listen to his views about the railways.

Mr. Michael Cocks: How can facts be incorrect?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman's facts are incorrect. It is amazing, but his facts about the social grant are incorrect. Last year, I authorised an increase of £110 million over the previous year in the social grant and maintained it at nearly the same level this year. The social grant is running at £100 million, in real terms, above the levels for 1980. That is substantial. The EFL is high, and the expenditure on track maintenance and renewal per mile is higher than in 1977 and 1978. If the hon. Gentleman were to put over some of those facts, he might find an industry that is more ready to recognise the benefits that would be available if everyone were to co-operate and work with morden practices.

Mr. John Hunt: My right hon. Friend has rightly commended the efforts of commuters who have made their way to work today. Will he extend his congratulations to those railwaymen who have reported for duty and shown more regard for the interests and burdens of the travelling public than for the political motives of their union leaders. Is not their action in the best tradition of railwaymen—a tradition which is being undermined by Mr. Weighell and Mr. Buckton?

Mr. Howell: The efforts of those who have reported for work and believe that it is wrong for the railways to close reflect their sense of duty and public service and a proper appreciation that if the union executive prolongs the strike it will be a disaster for the railway system and the most severe threat for many years to jobs and investment in the railway industry. That is appreciated by many sensible and dedicated railwaymen. I wish that they would pass it on to others.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Is the Minister aware that if the Government had the sense and moderation to legislate on London Transport last winter the whole of the present trouble with LT could have been avoided?

Mr. Howell: If we had had the immoderation to follow the right hon. Gentleman's views and had allowed the

GLC to increase expenditure on London Transport by £1,200 million over the next four years rates would have been so high that there would have been no business in Central London to come to. In that sense the right hon. Gentleman may have been right. His recipe was a most immoderate and unwise one. It is far more sensible for the GLC to concentrate, as I have asked it to do, on making sensible use of the substantial subsidy now available. It is perfectly possible for the law to be changed, if necessary, for next year. The GLC can put its plans to us and there is no need for disruption or inflaming support for the strikes arising from the Law Lords judgment or the legal position.

Mr. David Alton: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is the earnest hope of all members of the travelling public that the dispute will be settled rapidly, and that immoderate language by either side will not be helpful? Will he dissociate himself from the comments made by the Paymaster General over the weekend in which he suggested that British railwaymen are on a par with Argentine conscripts? By questioning their patriotism he was doing no service at all.

Mr. Howell: My right hon. Friend did no such thing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in the interests of his constituents and many other people struggling to work, will give them his full support in facing the inconveniece and misery that have been placed upon them and reassure them that he is using his influence to stop those in the union executive who are following this course from imposing further inconvenience and misery for no good reason on his constituents and many others in the city which he represents.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he enjoys widespread support for his reluctance to become directly involved in the dispute? Is not the irony of the present position that the actions of the railways unions, far from bringing any concessions on productivity and rostering, are only likely to hasten the day when more jobs will be lost and greater productivity agreements will be required to finance the catastrophic losses that the industrial action will cause?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The course upon which the union is now set will be utterly counterproductive.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that we have now reached the point when all the parties involved in the dispute should be called together? The Government have failed to face up to their responsibilities to the industry and the nation, and it has been left to people like myself who spent the whole of last week meeting the TUC and ACAS to do the job that the Government should be doing.
I hope that the Government will face up to that responsibility. If they want increased productivity, they have to increase investment. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman may have said on the radio this morning, investment in British Rail compared to the rest of Europe is appalling.
The final point I wish to make—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am anxious to call four more hon. Members from each side of the House.

Mr. Howell: It is desirable that the British Railways Board and the Union, which has called the strike, should discuss the basis on which the strike can be called off. Last


week the British Railways Board proposed new and easier arrangements by which productivity changes could be introduced. They were put forward in an appropriate spirit but they were turned down. How can the hon. Gentleman argue that there is a need for the parties to come together when it is clear that the attempt to do that last week was unsuccessful? The prevailing spirit of the executive of the NUR—I hope it will change—is that it is not interested in moving to where productivity promises will be delivered, whether on a basis satisfactory to it or on any other basis. That is what needs to be changed before a coming together will do any good.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The well-intentioned words of some Labour Members who have experience of the railways contrast with what was said by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), who described the fulfilment of past pledges on productivity by the unions as strings to be attached to the ending of the disruption.

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There are several nuances and differences of approach which reflect differences of approach within the union. Unfortunately, the less clear thinking and more immoderate approach seem to be prevailing.

Mr. Peter Snape: Does the Minister accept that, as there is massive inconvenience, dislocation and damage to British Industry because of the strike, that shows that railway men ought to be better paid? Public transport has been subsidised by inadequate wages for too long. Is the Minister aware that thousands of public transport workers depend on family income supplement despite the unsocial hours that they work? Will he act like a Minister responsible for the service instead of as a propagandist for a Cabinet that believes in taking on the public sector?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman talks about pay. I mentioned earlier the substantial increases that railwaymen have had in recent years and the extra increases they were paid for promises on productivity. The work changes have not taken place. There might have been room for more had £80 million not gone down the plughole during the earlier part of the year when ASLEF decided to resist changes towards flexible rostering which were recognised as being right by the British Railways Board and have since been confirmed by Lord McCarthy and the Railway Staff National Tribunal. If there had been a little more pressure on ASLEF from the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends not to pour money away, the railway system might be in better shape now. It is a little late to think about it now.

Mr. Tony Durant: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Opposition whether they condemn the strike?

Mr. Howell: The question hangs in the air. No doubt the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) will speak for himself. I know that the nation at large will want to know where those in the political parties stand on strikes and strike action which, certainly in the case of London, have a very thin and flimsy industrial base. We will want to know that from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the reasons for the present situation is a genuine fear about job security and

future investment in the industry? Even if he will not come into the arena on the pay side and on the very inadequate offer that has been made, surely he can give an assurance that the Government will have a much more genuine financial commitment to the future of the railways than they have shown in the past. If he is genuinely worried about what he sees as immoderation in the NUR, will he accept that one of the greatest difficulties in creating an atmosphere that might encourage a settlement is his immoderate and abrasive attitude towards the strike over the last week or two?

Mr. Howell: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I believe that the public should be given every possible protection against the hardship that has been inflicted on them. Substantial investment has gone into the railway industry, the Government have made clear their commitment in principle to the electrification programme and the East Coast mainline project is with the Department now.
We have always said, and this has received widespread support, that approval of the programme should be linked to progress on productivity and the business performance of the railways. If the hon. Gentleman can point me to where real progress on productivity is taking place I will say that such things should certainly be closely linked to investment, but at the moment no one can argue that we are making progress on productivity.

Mr. John Major: Will my right hon. Friend continue to acknowledge the courage and responsibility of the railwaymen who turned up for work this morning? Does not their action suggest that they believe that the NUR is in the wrong in this dispute? Is it not a tragedy the Mr. Weighell has lost control of his executive?

Mr. Howell: It is my view that the union executive under its present control, wherever that may lie, has taken a tragic turn which is not in the best interests of the industry or those working in it.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the only money that British Rail gets from the Government is the public service obligation, and that that is largely designed to keep open uneconomic lines, most of which are in constituencies represented by Conservative Members? If the Government force British Rail into an economic position in which it has to close lines, the affected lines will be in the constituencies of Conservative Members and not in those represented by Labour Members.

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman used the word "only" when referring to the public service obligation, but it is a very substantial sum—well over £2 million a clay. That is a substantial amount and it has been rising to record levels. More taxpayers' money is going into British Rail today than at any time in its history. In addition, the Government provide substantial borrowing facilities and set an investment ceiling, which is higher than it was under the Labour Government. Resources for investment also have to be found within that ceiling. Unfortunately, many have been siphoned off by pointless disputes and soaring daily costs. Those costs need to be controlled, and improvements in working practices would do that.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that inside every male member of the


British public there is a small boy who wants to be a train driver trying to get out? There is no strike in recent years in which there would have been more volunteers, if volunteers were possible.

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend touches the deep truth that the nation values its railway system and regards it as precious. None of us likes to see the system get into the state into which it is being led. I think that that applies on both sides of the House and among those who work in the vast majority of the railway industry. Unfortunately, there are apparently others with other views who are leading the industry on a very dangerous course.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: At a time when there are about four million on the dole, largely as a result of the Government's policies, what is morally wrong with railwaymen fighting to save jobs instead of throwing more people on the scrap heap? At a time when the Government are prepared to pay 21 per cent. to judges and 18 per cent. to top civil servants, what is morally wrong with railwaymen fighting to get only half such percentages? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that 18 months ago he stood at that Dispatch Box and said that he would take on the miners? Four days later he got blown off course.
I suggest to the railwaymen, and I hope that they take careful note of this, that if they keep up the pressure on the Minister they will have more than a good chance of blowing him away. They are fighting for two just causes. Before the election the right hon. Gentleman was one of those who argued for free collective bargaining. That is what railwaymen are fighting for.

Mr. Howell: At a time when there is high unemployment and when many people would like a good and secure job, it is all the more regrettable that, in the light of the issues that have been discussed in the House in the past week, those who control the executive of the NUR should decide that the union should strike. That is regrettable when there are many who need and would like a good and secure job.
As for the rest of the hon. Member's remarks, if one can call them remarks, they will do no service to the railway industry or to bringing peace. If the hon. Gentleman wants to end the dispute he should bring his influence to bear on the railway unions to stop the disastrous course on which they are leading the industry.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call one more Conservative Back Bencher, because I shall be calling another Opposition Front Bench spokesman.

Mr. John Lee: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is monstrous that in a free society in

this day and age the NUR should call its members out on strike without giving them the individual opportunity of voting in a secret ballot on whether they want to strike? Will he draw to the attention of the NUR executive the fact that many employees in the private sector, including my constituents in the textile industry, have settled for increases of around 5 per cent., despite substantial job losses, redundancies and short-time working, and even though there have been substantial productivity increases?

Mr. Howell: I hope that the NUR conference at Plymouth will be an opportunity for a close consultation and a calmer discussion of the issues involved and the wisdom or otherwise—I believe it to be wholly otherwise—of going on strike. That would be a very good idea.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on his statement and cease to take advice from the hotheads in the Government? Will he for once give encouragement to the railway unions, which have delivered massively on productivity over the past few years? How can the right hon. Gentleman talk about industrial practices of 1919 when he knows that in the past two years alone 14,000 jobs have been negotiated away? How can he talk about his delivery of investment when he knows that in 1980–81 investment was down by £46 million and last year it was down by £21 million? Will he not for once realise that as Secretary of State his job is to give encouragement to the industry and the rail unions and to realise that the first all-out strike of the railways for over 50 years must show that there are very deep feelings within the industry? The right hon. Gentleman ought to bring into the arena a spirit of conciliation instead of merely rabbiting on as he does. He is responsible for the damage to the railway industry and well he knows it.

Mr. Howell: The best encouragement for the industry, and it ought to come from the Opposition as well as from other parties, would be the rapid adoption of modern work practices, applied to the new investment and equipment that is rolling on to our railway lines. New electric coaches and sleeping cars are being built, the £200 million high-speed train scheme has just been completed, there is £150 million for the new electric trains between Bedford and St. Pancras and a vast re-signalling programme. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman dismisses those as being of no significance. He would do better to go to the railwaymen, who are dedicated and sensible people, and say that investment is going on, with the prospect of more if they can cut costs and adopt the new work practices. That will generate more money, which can be invested in the railways. Let us together do that and work on those lines instead of striking against the public and strangling London and the country, which will do no good to the union, the railways or the nation.

Lebanon (Israeli Action)

Mr. Tony Marlow: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
intervention in the Lebanon".
Forty years ago German Nazis sought to annihilate the Jewish people. Today, some Jewish Nazis are seeking to annihilate the Palestinian people. Forty years ago, to its eternal shame, the world turned its back on the horrors of the gas chambers. It must not similarly avert its gaze from the mutilations of the cluster bomb. The present action—the specific and important matter—is best described from Jewish mouths. Dr. Nahum Goldman, the former president of the World Jewish Congress, said:
The apparent aim is to liquidate the Palestinian people".
Yesterday, the Israeli General Yariv said:
No one who can bring us harm in the future will escape.
As we know, that means any Palestinian until a Palestinian State is established.
An Israeli soldier said:
I would like to see all the Palestinians dead because they are a sickness wherever they go … The death of one Israeli soldier is more important than the death of even several hundred Palestinians … Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the Palestinians all dead and helping to do it.
He will be satisfied with 14,000 dead, mostly women and children.
Western journalists and Western humanitarian aid are prevented from arriving in the Lebanon. The matter is urgent, Mr. Speaker, because Tyre, Sidon and Damour are already obliterated and West Beirut is currently threatened. A total of 6,000 prisoners have been taken and treated in complete disregard of the Geneva convention. Human beings have been hung in nets from helicopters. Young men with their wrists tied behind their backs are chained together and crosses painted on their backs before being dispatched to concentration camps in Israel. Doctors and medical staff are rounded up while wounded children cry out for help. Young boys are savagely beaten to death with rubber hoses.
Surely the time has come for the civilised world, not least Britain and her European partners, to intervene by whatever means necessary to prevent this genocide. I believe that the House must discuss urgently how we can bring pressure to bear and act to stop further horrific action.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) gave me notice before 12 noon today that he might seek to make an application under Standing Order No. 9 to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
intervention in the Lebanon".
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reason for my decision.
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the five Questions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Funds for Trade Union Ballots Order 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Agriculture Act 1970 Amendment Regulations 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Excise Duties (Deferred Payment) Regulations 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Pool Competition Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. —[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENT

Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 8467/81, concerning Community information systems, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents —[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[2I ST ALLOTED DAY]—considered

Immigration Regulations

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the increasingly repressive operation of immigration regulations; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to implement such regulations in future in a way which is consistent with the standards of humanity, compassion and respect for family life in a civilised community.
I propose to attempt to substantiate three specific charges against the Government's immigration policy as devised and implemented during the past three years. However, before I advance those charges I must express dismay and astonishment at the terms of the Government's amendment to the motion. A review of immigration regulations is said to be in progress, partly as a consequence of the new British Nationality Act. A consultation document on the appeals procedure was published over a year ago, and no doubt some action on that is expected. A Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Home Affairs is examining one aspect of today's topic—immigration from the Indian Subcontinent. At least three specific cases are currently being examined by the European Commission on Human Rights. Despite all that, the Government have, by tabling their amendment, announced their absolute, unequivocal and total support for the existing immigration regulations. The Government are asking the House to endorse that total, unequivocal and in no way diminished support for what is now happening.
It is the Home Secretary's duty, out of courtesy to the Select Committee, to his Minister of State who made promises during the passing of the British Nationality Act, and to the European Commission on Human Rights, to make it absolutely clear that if, thanks to a combination of Whips and prejudice, the amendment is carried, that does not mean that the present regulations will continue wholly unamended and applied as they are today. If the regulations are to continue unchanged, three years of assurances will be broken in a single vote. For my part, I am perfectly prepared to regard the amendment as having inept wording rather than believe that there is any adverse intention on the part of the Home Secretary.
There are three areas in which changes are urgently necessary and on which I make specific charges concerning the present regulations and their application. First, the regulations deny the legitimate right of British women to be joined in this country by their husbands. The women who suffer most from that deprivation are black. Secondly, the regulations deny the legitimate right of British citizens to be joined in this country by their dependent relatives. The families who suffer most from that deprivation are black. Thirdly, the regulations deny the legitimate right of British citizens to be freely visited in this country by their friends and relations. The visitors who suffer most from the that deprivation are black.
I could, and no doubt my hon. Friends will, make other criticisms of the immigration regulations and of how they are implemented. For instance, there is the sudden and retrospective redefinition of illegal immigration, the deportation of men and women because they failed to give information at ports for which they were not asked, and the appalling effect that that decision has had on a small group of Filipino domestic workers.
There are other examples of inadequacies, such as the operation of the special voucher scheme, the inadequacy of the present appeals machinery and the strange and increasingly repressive immigration attitude towards Muslim and Hindu priests who wish to enter this country to follow their ministry. No doubt some of my hon. Friends will deal with those points. I shall concentrate on the three specific points I have mentioned.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify one fundamental point? He draws attention to three areas concerning the rights of British citizens. Is he distinguishing between their rights and those of other nationals, such as Commonwealth citizens who have the right of abode in the United Kingdom and who normally have an entitlement to be joined, for example, by their spouses?

Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to go further, I shall gladly do so. Having pressed me to do so and having obtained the answer that he clearly seeks, I hope that he will join me in the Division Lobby. My clear view is that a man or woman living here and allowed legally to do so for a restricted period should be allowed to be joined by his wife or her husband.

Mr. Tony Marlow: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I think I should answer one question before the hon. Gentleman, who has already interrupted three times from a sedentary positon, makes another point.
I wish to make it clear to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) that this is the correct position. I wish, however, to devote the limited time at my disposal to three specific criticisms. I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman's extension of what I have to say.

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point?

Mr. Hattersley: I should like to continue for a few moments before seeing whether there is time for the hon. Gentleman to intervene. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself.
I have made it clear that there are three criticisms that I wish to advance. Our complaint concerns essentially the Government's attitude to secondary immigration. Primary immigration into this country has virtually stopped and will never again, in my view, be a feature of our society. I am sure that this is the point that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) wished to put. I invite him to develop it.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He says that a man or woman should be allowed to bring in his wife or her husband. As a matter of information, will he tell the House—he perhaps intends to do so—in what other countries the arrangements that he would like to see here are made?

Mr. Hattersley: It is a common practice in civilised society to allow those who married their nationals to join


their nationals in those countries. I am asking for no more than a common civilised practice. The hon. Gentleman, by asking the easy questions, demonstrates the importance of not giving way too often. I shall not make that mistake again I never interrupt the Home Secretary because I despair of ever obtaining any information from him.
The Opposition accept that the argument is about secondary immigration. Primary immigration is no longer a feature of our society. Nor is it likely to be so in future. Despite that, the Government continue to be obsessed by numbers and by the spectre of illegal immigration. As a result of that obsession, the Government are willing to deny hundreds of legitimate applications in order to frustrate a handful of bogus applicants.
The United Kingdom immigration advisory service, a Government-sponsored body with unrivalled experience of the regulations, summarised the Government's position simply. It has said that
thousands of genuine persons may be allowed to suffer but one dishonest one may not be allowed to enter.
The immigration advisory service also had a clear view about the manner in which the Immigration Rules are at present administered when entry applications are processed. It said that there is
overwhelming evidence … to show that the strenuous search for discrepancies has become almost an obsession.
I share that view from the experience of my constituents who have made legitimate applications to be joined here in this country by their families which have been subject to extraordinary processes by immigration officials. I am happy to see the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) nodding in agreement. I offer an example of the situation I have described. The hon. Gentleman will perhaps offer others. Indeed, I offer two examples. The first concerns Fazal Begum, the mother of Mohammed Saeed, of 97 Stoney Lane, Birmingham 12. This lady applied to join her son in this country as a dependent relative. She did so while on holiday in England but, as was required of her, returned home while her application was processed. She made the application on 11 August 1979 and was first interviewed on 14 May 1981, 20 months later.
I wrote on her behalf to the Home Office in the same month and again in July, November, December and January. I received a substantive reply in March, 19 months after her original application. The reply stated that her application was unsuccessful, because Mohammed Najeeb of 78 Newton Road, Sparkbrook, was too poor to maintain his mother in this country. However, Mohammed Najeeb was not her sponsor. He was a second son who had been included on her application as it was her duty to do. Her sponsor, Mohammed Saeed, the other son, owned three shops himself and his wife owned a fourth. He was wholly and entirely able to support his mother.
When I told the Home Office that it had dealt with the wrong son and given the wrong answer, the reply was that she still could not come because the original sponsor and applicant had not provided information to demonstrate that he had been regularly supporting her for the past two years. The blandness of that horrified me. The absence of compassion horrified me. The inefficiency horrified me, not least because I had sent documented evidence myself about the real sponsor's continual support of his mother at home.
If this was an isolated example of the Government or their officials going to any length to find reasons why

genuine applicants should not be endorsed, it would be hardly worth mentioning. It is not, however, a specific example. I suspect that this case will have a happy ending. It has achieved some publicity. I pay tribute, without any suggestion of irony, to the Home Secretary who, when he has the opportunity personally to intervene, does so in a compassionate manner. My concern is for the hundreds of cases that do not reach the Home Secretary's desk, that are not heard about through the newspapers and about which hon. Members do not make a fuss, even though I have great hope in the case I have mentioned.
I should like, however, to quote a second case in which a similar situation arose. It concerns another constituent, as she is now, Mrs. Aisha Khan, the wife of Shahid Khan of Weatheroak Road, Sparkhill. Mrs. Khan was interviewed three times about her application to join her husband in this country. Each time she was required to travel long and difficult journeys to the embassy. Eventually, the Home Office was convinced—I think partly by my persuasion—that she was the wife of the man who wished her to enter this country. Just as her certificate was about to be issued, her happy husband completed his course sponsored by the Department of Employment which enabled him to acquire a new skill. Since he was then between the jobcentre and employment, the Home Office announced that he was unable to support his wife in this country and she could not be allowed entry. I am happy to say that, by the personal intervention of the Home Secretary, that rule was reversed. I say again, however, that if it needs the intervention of the Home Secretary on occasions when hon. Members make a public fuss, our great concern must be for the hundreds, or, indeed, thousands, of cases where that has not happened.

Mr. John Carlisle: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving the House that picture of his two constituents that I would have thought more appropriate for an Adjournment debate. The right hon. Gentleman lays the blame personally at the door of the Home Secretary or the Minister of State. Is he saying that no such cases existed and no such anomalies occurred under the Labour Government?

Mr. Hattersley: I am saying that there has been a change. There has been more than a change. I am saying that the Home Secretary will not deny that there has been a change. One reason why he will not deny it is that if he was to say that he was operating the immigration regulations in the way that the previous Government did he would be in great trouble from those below the Gangway, who are nominally called his hon. Friends.
If the Home Secretary were to say that nothing has changed since 1978, I should be astonished to hear it. I would regard him as a rash man in terms of his own prospects within the Conservative Party. I have always assumed the Home Secretary to be one of those people who believed that survival was an achievement. In order that he may do so, I should like to inform his hon. Friends how different things are, and the blame that I lay at the right hon. Gentleman's door. For, while the Home Secretary has acted with great compassion in individual cases, he is responsible for the general hardening of attitude in the immigration service which has come about either as a result of direct ministerial instruction or because the policies and attitudes of the Conservative leadership have indirectly permeated down through the Home Office


and the immigration division of the Foreign Office. He cannot escape the blame for what has happened, either as a result of his direct instruction or as a result of the attitudes that his officials and civil servants know his Government hold, and know him personally to condone.
If the Home Secretary denied that—and I am sure that he would not do so, for the reasons I have described—I should at once wish to move on to the first of my specific charges. The Government have made a massive and major change in the immigration regulations which has crucially reduced the prospect of members of one section of the British public obtaining the rights to which, in justice and compassion, they are properly entitled. That specific allegation concerns my first indictment—the denial of the right of some British citizens to be joined in this country by their husbands and by men who are about to become their husbands.
In the light of the history of the facts, nobody should argue that this is just as it was. On 7 April 1978, in Leicestershire, the then Shadow Home Secretary promised
a clear prospect of an end to immigration".
Primary immigration has already ended, but I shall put that aside. He asserted that the
abode of the husband in marriage should normally be viewed as the natural place of residence
for the family.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hattersley: Hear, hear? That seems to me to be discrimination overtly against women and covertly against black women.

Mr. Stanbrook: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) wishes to justify his position, and I am happy to let him do so.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is the right hon. Member aware that the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which includes members of his party, agreed to that proposition?

Mr. Hattersley: That may be so, but, with great respect—I hear dissent to the hon. Gentleman's view from Opposition Back Benches—it is not a view that I hold. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) reminds me that had that been the case many distinguished Members of the House, none of whom I am prepared to name, might either have not sat here or might be residing in other places. [HON. MEMBERS: "Names?"] Names will never cross my lips.
To say in this day and age that the residence of the family must be where the husband chooses is a preposterous denial of women's rights, and, as it works out, is an even more disreputable denial of black women's rights, as I shall try to demonstrate.
Having made that promise, the Home Secretary was successful in placing it explicitly in the Tory manifesto, which said:
We shall end the concession introduced by the Labour government in 1974 to husbands and male fiancés.
The concession simply allowed all British women to be joined in this country by their husbands or fiancés on the point of marriage, whatever the men's nationality. That is something that the Labour Party regards as a minimal

human right. That right was removed by the present Government, but it is important to realise that it was removed with two refinements.
It was not the removal of all women from that category that the Government eventually implemented, for they first removed from the removal, if the House understands my point, women born in the United Kingdom. They were allowed to marry and bring into this country nationals of other countries. Secondly, the Government removed from the ban women with one parent born in this country. They were also allowed to marry foreign nationals and bring them into the country.
That had two effects. The first was to create two classes of British citizenship—one able to marry foreign nationals and live with them in this country and one not able to do so. That is bad in itself. All British citizens should have the same rights, irrespective of how their citizenship has been acquired. However, bad as that is in itself, the application of the principle—the two refinements that the Home Secretary introduced—makes the entire operation wholly disgraceful. White women in Britain can marry foreigners who can then come into this country, but black women, perhaps living next door to them, do not have the same opportunity and right. I hope that the Home Secretary will not tell me that that is not his intention.
I say to the Home Secretary, as I said to him when we were debating the British Nationality Bill, that it does not concern me what goes on in his head or heart. All that concerns the Labour Party is the effects of his legislation, and the effect of the clauses concerning husbands and male fiancés joining their spouses in this country is that it is all right for white women, but not for black.
In the light of that, I ask the Home Secretary three questions which I hope he will answer himself. First, what has happened to the pre-election promise that he made to the Federation of Indian Organisations? He said in a letter on 20 July 1978:
In reviewing individual applications for entry on compassionate grounds, a Conservative Government will always take into consideration … historic, social and religious
considerations. From my experience, there is no evidence that that promise is being fulfilled. Indeed, immigration authorities seem to assume that all religious arranged marriages are bogus marriages, thereby denying the very principle of "historic, religious and social" considerations.
Secondly, what is the Government's attitude towards the European Convention on Human Rights and its May conclusions? Do the Government accept the strictures from that body regarding three Asian women and their husbands? Do they now propose to attempt the friendly settlement that they were invited to assail, and, when that friendly settlement has been obtained, will the Government change the law to put it back within the terms of the European Convention?
Thirdly, what changes in the immigration law can we expect as a result of the British Nationality Act? That Act claimed to provide equality for both men and women who marry foreign nationals and then hope to bring them to Britain. It did so by making things worse for men and their wives. Equality was obtained by making wives wait longer before they could become nationals of this country. It justified the claim of equality by saying that all applicants for British citizenship, whether they were foreign nationals who had become husbands or foreign nationals who had become wives, could achieve British nationality only after a three-year residence qualification.
There is some scepticism about an equality that is achieved by making things worse for the privileged group, but there is more to it than that. To say that British men who marry foreign wives can have their wives become British after a three-year residence qualification is the depth of political dishonesty when the Government will not allow the wives into the country to qualify under the three-year residence qualification.
Therefore, will the Home Secretary end the subterfuge of equality by saying that for these women the prospect of British nationality is remote, because they cannot get into the country to qualify, or will he make a genuine, honest and decent change?
The other indictment that we make of the Government relates to visitors to this country. I fear that, like many of the problems associated with husbands and wives, it is a result of the Government themselves and the officials who serve them being incapable of understanding the mores of the Asian community. Sikhs, Indians and Pakistanis are prepared to spend large sums of money—indeed, relative to their earnings, huge sums of money—on making genuine visits to their relatives in this country. They come for weddings in particular, for religious festivals or simply for family reunions. I am glad that the hon. Member for Preston, North agrees with me.
Some of the hardened and more cynical Members of the House would not spend £50 going to their cousin's wedding in Reading.—[AN HON. MEMBER: "How would they get there?"] In the way that most of us have travelled today.
However, hon. Members should not assume from that that other communities with other mores are not prepared to make substantial sacrifices to attend family gatherings.
There is a predisposition among immigration authorities to believe that if a young and comparatively poor man spends £400 or £500 on coming to this country as a visitor he is a potential illegal immigrant. The same prejudice affects their attitude to elderly relatives. If an old lady has £400 or £500 spent on her to come to her daughter's wedding or some other religious festival involving her family, the supposition is that she will not go home.
Many of my hon. Friends—and, I suspect, many Conservative Members—have intervened on behalf of visitors in an attempt to persuade the Government that they should be allowed in, and have found that the visitors returned home as promised and on schedule, confounding the view that such men and women are here for illegal immigration. I ask the Government to accept the evidence of case after case.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall not give way a second time. It was not enormously rewarding when I gave way on the first occasion, and it would be rash of me to risk wasting the time of the House again.
I want to say a word about how our posts abroad deal with potential visitors.

Mr. Tim Eggar: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: Certainly.

Mr. Eggar: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the number of refusals last year to temporary visitors?
Will he confirm that the number was about 13,000, which is much less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. of all those who tried to enter the country?

Mr. Hattersley: I blame myself for not assuming that hon. Members ask questions about matters that I am coming to. Of course I shall comment on the numbers. However, I propose to comment on the relevant numbers of visitors from the Indian Sub-continent. There is no opposition to Americans coming here in large numbers. The problem, in simple and crude language, is the prohibition on black visitors to this country. I shall return to this subject in a moment.
First, I want to deal with the Immigration Rules. Paragraph 20 refers to the normally "appropriate" time for visitors who are allowed into this country. Before that, the rules say that a visa is not normally necessary. As I understand it, our posts abroad are still saying to visitors "You can go without any documentation. It will probably be all right when you get there". However, the unfortunate experience of many families is that it is not all right when they get here. For my part, I always urge the obtaining of formal permission before setting out on a route which ends with a couple of days detention, a forced passage back to the Indian Sub-continent, and the hopeless promise that they can appeal against a decision once they get to New Dehli or Islamabad.
More important is what paragraph 20 of the Immigration Rules says. It says that normally six months will be the appropriate period for visits and that
The period should not be restricted
except for "special reasons".
That rule is applied in a quite extraordinary manner. The restriction, which should not be applied except in abnormal circumstances, is applied to only one American in 165. It is applied to one Indian in 10, one Pakistani in six, one Ghanaian in five, and one Cypriot in four. That is more than a coincidence. Clearly the assumption by the immigration authorities is that immigrants from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan are not likely to be bona tide visitors but are likely to attempt illegally to remain. It is important for the Home Office to put that prejudice, for prejudice it is, out of its mind.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, because it is important to get the numbers correct. As I understand what he said, Cyprus is at the bottom of the list. It has the largest number of refusals, in the sense that one in every four applicants is refused from Cyprus. Those who suffer most from other countries, as my right hon. Friend rightly said, are black or from Africa. The record shows that intending visitors from Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda are treated worse than most others.

Mr. Hattersley: I thank my hon. Friend for confirming the figures that I gave. He knows, as I do, from constituency experience that, at best, those people are allowed to remain for a period that is shorter than that stipulated in the regulations and, at worst, they are placed on aeroplanes, returned home, and lose their fares. Once they are 3,000 or 4,000 miles from the place that they hoped to visit, they are told to appeal.
There is another major worry that I want to mention, and I hope that my hon. Friends will widen the debate to other issues. It concerns dependent relatives, elderly


parents and children. That problem cannot be distinguished from the interviewing techniques by which legitimacy of applications is tested. I concede at once that there has been one improvement, and that is that the waiting time for an interview, at least at Dacca where the queue and the waiting time were longest, has now been reduced. That reduction is in part the result of reduced applications, since potential immigrants know the answer that they are likely to receive. Nevertheless, I welcome the reduction in the queue. However, there is still a wait of a year or 18 months for a first interview at which the man or woman demonstrates his or her right—not hope—to enter this country. In the last three years, the problem has been exacerbated by the fact that the Government have asked increasingly for a second or third interview. That has prolonged the whole process, not least because of the reduction in the number of entry clearance officers from 47 to 38. If the Government were to reappoint the officers that they have removed from posts, great suffering and hardship could be avoided.
Even when the interviews take place, too often they are wholly unsatisfactory. Children as young as 10 are cross-examined about details of property and parentage. They are often asked questions which they are incapable of answering. The Indian culture does not distinguish between some of their relatives, but comparatively young people have been asked to distinguish between them. As a result not of their failure to answer the question but of their natural tendancy to answer the questions according to their culture, not ours, they have been ruled out as potential immigrants.
Evidence from statutory documents is often ignored or assumed to be forged. As a result, elderly parents are denied admission, and children anxious for reunion with their parents are not allowed to enter the country. I have no doubt that many of my hon. Friends will want to give additional examples of this unacceptable situation.

Mr. Robert Atkins: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I shall not give way, because I am coming to a conclusion. I want to finish so that other hon. Members may speak.
I conclude with one more example which, in my view, overwhelmingly makes the case for our motion. It is an example which concerns ministerial discretion. It concerns a Mrs. Begum of Gladstone Road, Birmingham, a lady who was widowed and whose eldest teenage son died from a congenital disease. Her daughter then began to develop the same fatal symptoms. Mrs. Begum, without any English, illiterate in her own language, asked for the admission of a relative to assist her through a uniquely difficult time. Permission was denied to that relative because he had already applied to enter Britain under a different immigration category.
A Government who do that are behaving in a way inconsistent with the conduct of a civilised society, and we propose to vote against them tonight.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move, to leave out from 'That' to end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

'this House welcomes the firm but fair way in which Her Majesty's Government has applied the immigration rules approved by Parliament while dealing compassionately with deserving cases'.
I was a little surprised that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) should criticise the terms of the amendment. I must refer to the terms of his motion. I accept at once that the right hon. Gentleman writes English well. From time to time I take the trouble to read the articles that he writes. I can only presume that when he puts his name to a motion he has considered its implications.
When I read
calls upon Her Majesty's Government to implement such Regulations in future in a way which is consistent with the standards of humanity, compassion and respect for family life in a civilised community",
I am entitled to believe that he meant to direct the debate to the implementation of the Immigration Rules. That is what is said, and, from someone who writes English well, that is what I would understand him to mean. If he does not mean that, what does he mean?

Mr. Hattersley: I certainly meant that. I also meant the first line of the motion, which, for some reason, the right hon. Gentleman has not read.

Mr. Whitelaw: I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman meant the first line of the motion. However, I am entitled to address myself to what he requires Her Majesty's Government to do. The motion says that
this House regrets the increasingly repressive operation of immigration regulations".
He refers to the "operation" of the Immigration Rules. The right hon. Gentleman prides himself on writing English and I, who do not pride myself for one moment on writing English, am entitled to criticise his. I understood that the debate was to be directed, fairly and understandably, to the "implementation" and "operation" of the Immigration Rules as they stand. That is what the motion says. Our amendment is consistent with that.
I shall first answer the questions that the right hon. Gentleman has addressed to me about the rules. I shall then deal with what I believe to be the terms of the motion as it stands, to which, to be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, he directed a large part of his speech.
First, he asked what had happened to the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the husband's and fiance's position. Three cases have been found admissible by the convention, but it has yet to reach any view on their merits.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked what our attitude will be to the need for changes in immigration regulations created by the British Nationality Act, which is to come into effect in 1983. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced last Thursday, before that we shall announce any changes that we believe to be necessary in the immigration regulations and rules consequent upon that Act coming into force on 1 January. We shall take the opportunity to present any such proposals to the House in good time so that they can be debated. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that we will give time for a proper debate on any changes before the implementation of the Act. Therefore, it is right to direct the debate and my speech to the rest of the motion which, I still maintain, concerns the implementation and operation of the rules.
I begin by reminding the House of the approach that the Conservative Party said that it would take to immigration


control before it was elected, which it was elected to take and which it has in fact taken during its time in office. We said in our manifesto that we believed in firm immigration control. In our view, that is the only sensible and realistic approach for a British Government to take at present.
To make an obvious point, any country has the right to regulate immigration into its territory. Civilised countries generally subscribe to the free movement of persons, but all countries, so far as I know, have some form of immigration control. The particular form that that control takes reflects the character and needs of the country concerned. The United Kingdom is not, and has not been for many years, a country of primary immigration. All parties accept that this is not such a country.
Despite the terms of the motion, the Labour Government found it necessary to control immigration. They did it by tightening up and enforcing the law. It is no good having controls unless they are enforced. It is an uncomfortable fact, but one which the Labour Party prefers to forget when it is in Opposition, that enforcing immigration control means taking difficult decisions in individual cases, which I fully recognise will be disappointing and sometimes deeply painful for the individuals concerned. That was so under the Labour Government. It is so under this Government, and it always will he.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), who did the same job as my Minister of State does today, will know how true that is.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My hon. Friend did it far better.

Mr. Whitelaw: That is not what many Labour Ministers think. Many of them have told me quite the reverse. I did not wish to say that, but the right hon. Gentleman invited it.
There has been no change in any of the instructions given to the immigration staff. I resent the suggestion that there has been. They have a duty to perform their task—a difficult one—irrespective of the political complexion of the Government of the day. That they have done and will continue to do, They have had no other instructions.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for honouring the promises that he made in the last debate, particularly those concerning isolated old people in the Indian Subcontinent.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is an inbuilt delay in the system? My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made it clear in his contribution that it must be tidied up and vastly improved.

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall come to the operation of the system. There are delays at all times. Sometimes, as I hope to show, the delays are to ensure that all the facts in the case are brought out, and all the necessary appeals and adjudication have taken place.
To make another obvious point, the decisions to which I referred are inherent in the Immigration Rules approved by Parliament, which are a statement of the practice to be followed in the administration of the Immigration Act 1971 for regulating the entry into and stay in the United Kingdom of persons required by the Act to have leave to enter. Those rules were fully debated before they were

approved by Parliament. As I said, I do not propose, nor do I think that the motion requires me, to go over all the arguments about them again today.
The present Government do not flinch from facing the facts. First and foremost we do not believe—neither does anyone else—that this country can afford to accept an uncontrolled flow of new immigration, nor do we believe that it is in the interests of anyone here, including those who are immigrants, or the children of immigrants, for us to do so. We said in the manifesto that firm immigration control is the foundation for good community relations. Only if people are satisfied that there is effective control is it possible to end the persistent and exaggerated fears about levels of immigration which are so unsettling in the context of the improved community relations that we all want to see.
I repeat, quite categorically, that the Government are firmly committed to good community relations. Many people have come here since the war—from Poland, for example, from the New Commonwealth and from other countries. They have already made a valuable contribution to the life of our nation. We must ensure that people from ethnic minorities enjoy the same opportunities as everyone else here. Equally, it is important that there should be equality of responsibility, that people from different backgrounds should make their full contribution to society and uphold the values for which this country stands. As far as the impact of our actions on race relations is concerned, I have been assured by many members of ethnic minorities that they have no sympathy with those who deliberately seek to evade the rules. Nor is this surprising, for those who make genuine applications within the rules are bound to feel considerable resentment against those who attempt to gain entry by cheating and misrepresentation.
The Opposition motion refers to the need to
respect … family life in a civilised community".
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook rightly referred to the danger of breaking up families. I remind him, however, that the Government have remained firmly committed, as they said that they would, to allowing in the wives and dependent children of men settled here. The new rules did not in any way affect the continued acceptance of wives and children. Nor have the Government any intention of going back on that commitment.
In the last year alone, 30,400 wives and children were accepted for settlement and 20,400 of those were from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan. That illustrates the strength of our commitment to reuniting families.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: A few moments ago the Home Secretary made a crucial comment. He said that he had no intention of withdrawing the concession allowing men to bring their wives to Britain. Does that include newly-married women? If so, does that mean that the Government do not propose to change the rules in the light of the British Nationality Act?

Mr. Whitelaw: I said that we were preserving our position regarding the British Nationality Act. I was referring to our commitment to allow in the wives and children of those who were settled here in 1973. We made that commitment in our election manifesto and we have adhered to it.

Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the distinction between those who evade the rules and


those who make genuine applications within the rules. May we take it that he believes that those who make genuine applications within the rules should be admitted to this country?

Mr. Whitelaw: If genuine applications within the rules are made, it is only right that they should be considered. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that they have to be considered and processed to ensure that the applications are genuine and within the rules. That is a perfectly proper course to adopt, and that is what we do when we use our discretion. All our immigration rules depend on that.
I turn now to what has been happening to the level of immigration since we were elected. Under the present Government the level of immigration has been reduced. The total number of persons accepted for settlement in 1979 was almost 70,000. Of those, 37,000 were from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan. The corresponding figures in 1981 were 58,000, of whom 31,000 were from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan. These were the lowest figures since 1973. The first quarter of this year shows a further drop. At the same time, there has been a sharp decline in the number of people in the queues for entry clearance for immediate settlement in the Indian Sub-continent. The total number of applicants in the queues at the end of March this year was 13,400, which was less than half the number in the queues at the end of March 1980.
What do these figures mean in terms of individual cases? The Opposition's motion speaks of an "increasingly repressive operation" of the immigration controls, but we are willing to exercise discretion where special individual circumstances warrant it. It is necessary to have clear, firm rules—as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook accepted—but equally the rules cannot cater for the variety of human circumstances. This is where the exercise of discretion in support of the rules is important. I emphasise "in support of the rules", because it would make no sense—indeed, it would be quite wrong—to have rules approved by Parliament which were in effect undermined by decisions taken by Ministers.
Hon. Members will know that Home Office Ministers spend a great deal of time considering individual cases personally. They know that their representations to us on individual cases, and more particularly to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who deals with most of the cases himself, are also carefully considered, and that we can and do exercise discretion. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was generous enough to accept that that was so. All Home Secretaries and all those who have operated the rules, such as the hon. Member for Halifax, have exercised discretion. It is right to do so, and I am glad that it is recognised that we also do that.
Let me describe just what the exercise of discretion in response to representations by hon. Members means in practice. Let us look at a hypothetical case of a person arriving at Heathrow wishing to enter this country. The immigration officer, after a detailed examination and after reference to a senior officer, decides that the person does not qualify under the rules to enter. If that person has arrived with an entry clearance or a work permit, he has a right of appeal in this country before he can be removed. He may appeal, first, to an independent adjudicator. If that

appeal is dismissed, he has a further right of appeal to the immigration appeal tribunal. During all that time that person has the right to remain here while the appeal proceedings are pending. If the appeal to the tribunal is dismissed, that person has yet a further right to apply to the courts for a judicial review of the tribunal's decision.
Quite apart from any right of appeal which he may have, the person, or his sponsor, is also free to contact a Member of Parliament before he is removed—as is anyone who is liable to removal. If the hon. Member makes representations on his behalf, no steps will be taken to remove the person from this country as long as those representations are being considered. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State or I will look at the case personally and decide whether to confirm the original decision. That is the situation if a person arrives here seeking leave to enter.
If a person is already here, he has even more extensive appeal rights—

Mr. Clinton Davis: Is it not true that not so long ago the Government sought to limit the ability of hon. Members to intervene and tried to ensure that people would lose rights, despite the representations made by hon. Members? Have the Government definitely changed their view?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that the House will agree that we should in the main, accept the representations made by an hon. Member who has a constituency interest in the case. We should not necessarily go wider than that. That position is widely recognised in the House. After all, it is accepted that we do not normally deal with each other's cases. Therefore, it was right to embark on that course. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is a sensible way to proceed.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the weekend, or during a holiday period, it is often impossible for the person concerned to get hold of his Member of Parliament? I have had to intervene simply because the hon. Member concerned could not be reached in an emergency through no fault of his own. I hope that the Home Secretary will not seek to limit such necessary interventions.

Mr. Whitelaw: I had the benefit of the advice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State during the hon. Gentleman's very proper intervention. He pointed out to me that in no case, if that were the position, would we refuse representations from another right hon. or hon. Member. That is important. I hope that the House will agree that in general it is right to deal with the matter through the Member concerned.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If he is not a racist.

Mr. Whitelaw: That is not a fair remark. Perhaps I can answer the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) before he stands up. We should all recognise that, whatever may be an hon. Member's view, it is always his duty, even if he disagrees with his constituent, to make proper representations on behalf of his constituent. A great deal of argument would have to be put before me before I would believe otherwise.

Mr. Lyon: I hope that the Home Secretary will accept from me, as a former Minister who did the job, that hon.
Members told me that they would not put forward a case because they did not believe that it was right that people should be allowed to enter the country.

Mr. Whitelaw: That is what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I have to accept it, but no right hon. or hon. Member has made that point to me.

Mr. Lyon: That cannot be right.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am entitled to say that no-one has made such a representation to me. I am sure that if I say that, the hon. Gentleman will accept it. He may have views about someone who might have made a representation to me, but I have to tell him that no such representations were made. That is a perfectly fair point.

Mr. Hattersley: I always accept the Home Secretary's word, but I am sorry that he does not listen to the radio or read the newspapers. One hon. Member now in his place has said that he never takes up cases with the Home Office because he accepts its judgment. Since the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) talks so much about honour, perhaps he will get up and tell the Home Secretary that is so.

Mr. John Stokes: I regret to say that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has misrepresented what happened. I was asked if I would put forward every case, irrespective of merit, where an immigrant was involved. I said "No", because I have few immigrants in my constituency. When the English come to me, I sort them out. I do not send every case to the Government. If I did, government would become impossible. I use my judgment first. Every hon. Member must use his judgment and not be bullied by anyone about him.

Mr. Whitelaw: There can be few hon. Members, myself included, who can say that they put forward every case presented to them. Many of us sometimes come across cases that cannot be recommended to go forward. We all have such cases. What my hon. Friend did was quite reasonable.
I have dealt with appeals in the case of a person arriving here who seeks leave to enter. For a person already here there are even more extensive appeal rights. He can appeal against a decision to refuse to allow him to extend his stay. He can appeal again if a decision is taken to deport him. On each occasion he has the right of appeal to an adjudicator, and a further right of appeal, with leave, to the tribunal. He may also apply to the courts for judicial review of the tribunal's decision. When all these avenues have been exhausted, there is still the right of a Member to make representations on the person's behalf to me or to my right hon. Friend.
I want to add a further important word about deportation. Each decision to deport is most carefully considered by Home Office Ministers, and deportation orders are signed by the Home Secretary personally. The Immigration Rules expressly require that, where consideration is given to the making of a deportation order, every relevant factor known to the Home Office must be taken into account, including such matters as the person's domestic and family circumstances, compassionate circumstances and any representations received on the person's behalf. I am also expressly required, in deciding whether deportation is the right course on the merits, to balance the public interest against any

compassionate circumstances in the case. The appellate authorities are required to adopt precisely the same approach.
Again, even after the careful exercise of discretion in deciding a deportation case, and after any appeal, I and my right hon. Friend are still willing to consider representations by Members on behalf of their constituents before the order is finally enforced.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the apparent ease with which anonymous information, supplied for whatever reason, seems to be given more attention than it should be given? I have had one or two such experiences in my constituency. I pay great tribute to my right hon. Friend, especially on his birthday today, for the compassion with which he and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State treat cases, but within the Department as a whole more attention appears to be paid to anonymous information emanating from perhaps jealous members of the community than should be given to it.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. As the years pass, birthdays become less a matter for congratulation, but I appreciate his remarks.
I assure my hon. Friend that the most careful consideration is given to all representations made to us. Indeed, those who examine the recommendations and put forward points to my right hon. Friend and myself are expert in deciding what is fair and what may be unfair or prejudiced information. I place great reliance on their judgment.

Mr. John Carlisle: A person ordered to be deported by the courts, who agrees that the deportation order should be served on him, has the right to appeal. Where the right of appeal is waived, why cannot that person be deported immediately? Why does he have to spend at least two to three weeks—in some cases five to six weeks—in a prison, at vast expense to the public purse, when he has agreed to leave the country voluntarily?

Mr. Whitelaw: Different problems arise, such as documentation and the appropriate method of transporting such people to the countries concerned. These things take time. I agree with my hon. Friend that they should take as little time as possible, but it does take time to complete the arrangements.
I hope that it will be clear from what I have said that a great deal of careful thought is given to individual cases at all stages and that there are ample opportunities available for a person, through the appeal procedures and through the consideration which we give to hon. Members' representations, to have the decision in his case reviewed.
I want to pay tribute here to the work of those whose job it is to apply the rules at the earlier stages in this process—to the immigration service, entry clearance officers and the officials who deal with applications from people in this country. They have a difficult job to do. I have no hesitation in saying that they approach their task with a proper degree of professional skill. They apply both common sense and humanity to their decisions.
I want, in particular, to emphasise the work done by the immigration service. It is not often realised what its job entails. During 1981 a total of 60 million passengers passed through the immigration controls. Of these, 32


million were arriving passengers, of whom 11·5 million were subject to immigration control. One of the duties of immigration officers is to identify persons attempting to enter for settlement or employment who have no entitlement to do so, but they also refuse entry to persons whose admission would be contrary to the public good.
The House will be aware of the recent trial of two South Americans on, amongst other things, official secrets charges, at the end of which the judge commended the immigration staff involved. Those two men had been identified on a busy immigration control carrying false identity papers and a forged immigration stamp. It is important that such people should be spotted and that they should not come into the country.
In all, 492 persons were refused entry on the ground that their exclusion was conducive to the public good in 1981, and a further 219 people were refused on the ground that they had presented falsified passports. Lest it should be thought that immigration officers are too concerned about refusal of entry and that they then delay the genuine passenger, it may be borne in mind that the person subject to control spends on average only a very short time at the immigration officer's desk at a busy port, such as terminal 3 at Heathrow. The House may also wish to note that the total number of persons refused entry in 1981 was 14,183 and that this constitutes only 0·12 per cent.—far less than 1 per cent.—of persons seeking entry at the ports.
As for enforcement, our practice in this country is to place particular reliance on proper controls at the port of entry, but to produce an effective immigration control it is clearly no good to rely upon preventive measures alone and not take action against those who break the rules or who seek to evade the control altogether. At the election we said that we would deal firmly with illegal entrants and overstayers. We have kept that promise. Last year, 640 people were removed from this country as illegal entrants and 970 were deported, mostly for overstaying.
This policy of a firm enforcement of the control is one which, quite rightly, all recent Administrations have pursued. It was the policy of the Opposition when they were in Government. In 1978, their last full year in power, 540 illegal entrants were removed and 770 people were deported. It is therefore somewhat surprising that Opposition Members should accuse us—as some have—of being in some way unduly severe in our enforcement action or of pursuing a vendetta against illegal entrants and overstayers.
In enforcing the immigration laws, it is essential that firm action be tempered by considerations of humanity and by what is just and reasonable action in the individual circumstances of the case. Our record on the very difficult questions of illegal entry that have arisen in recent years illustrates well this policy of firmness tempered with humanity.
Our approach to illegal entry by deception has been clear and straightforward. We take the view that someone who cheats his way into the country by means of lies, forged documents and other forms of deception has no more right to be here than the illegal entrant who arrives clandestinely and evades the control altogether. At the same time, we examine individual cases of illegal entry with care and compassion.
As I have said, 640 illegal entrants were removed last year, but I should add that 240 were allowed to remain

because, after careful consideration of their personal and family circumstances, we felt that there were strong compassionate reasons for allowing them to stay. For instance, we exercised our discretion generously in the cases of a number of Filipino nationals who gained entry to the United Kingdom on the basis of work permits obtained by deception. I have received many representations from right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House about such people. There is no doubt that they gained entry by deception on the basis of work permits. Some of them did not realise that. I think that we were right to take the decision that we took, and hon. Members have welcomed what we did.
The practical day-to-day problems of the enforcement of the immigration laws fall upon the shoulders of the immigration service and the police. There are difficult tasks to perform which have to be carried out in a firm but sensitive manner. When problems have arisen, we have attempted to overcome them by practical solutions—by the improvement or reinforcement of procedures.
The House will recall that in the early summer of 1980 public concern was expressed about the investigation at their place of work of numbers of people thought to be here unlawfully. We were accused at the time of organising so-called "fishing expeditions." The accusation was plainly false, and I refuted it strongly at the time. Nevertheless, I undertook a review of procedures in this area, and in December 1980 I announced the results of that review and the new guidelines to be followed in future in all operations.
Under the new guidelines, every effort is made before an operation takes place to identify those people suspected of committing immigration offences, and in all cases the appropriate community liaison officer is to be consulted. During the operation itself, when people are questioned and can be eliminated from suspicion immediately, they are to be subjected to no further inconvenience.
After 18 months' experience of the new procedures, I can report to the House that the guidelines that I announced at that time are being scrupulously followed by the immigration service and the police. In that time, of the 81 people who have been interviewed in major operations, 76 have been found to be in breach of the immigration laws. This is clear evidence that the new procedures are working well.
The Opposition's motion calls upon us to implement the rules in a way which is consistent with humanity and family life. The Government stand firmly on their record. The level of immigration has been reduced under the present Government. At the same time, we have shown our readiness to examine individual cases compassionately. Indeed, I find it hard to understand how the motion could be supported by a party which seeks to maintain effective immigration control.
Of course, it will always be possible to point to individual cases in which a difficult decision has gone against what the right hon. or hon. Member concerned believed would have been right, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I could equally quote many cases when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have expressed their gratitude for the humane and compassionate way in which their cases have been dealt with.
I submit that this is a shallow and niggling motion which deliberately evades the real issue. I therefore ask the House to reject it and to support the amendment.

Mr. John Tilley: I intend to pick out only two of the many issues raised by the motion. I shall use my new-found freedom on the Back Benches to say that although I support the Opposition Front Bench motion it would have helped if it had said not merely that we want the regulations to be implemented with more humanity, but that they should be changed. We need new regulations and rules.
For example, the foreign husbands rule cannot be operated with respect for family life because it is a direct denial of that respect. That rule has been practised for two years. Many right hon. and hon. Members have discovered how oppressive and unfair it is. The way in which the rule is applied is arbitrary, as is ministerial discretion. In some of the cases with which I have dealt a couple have been allowed to live here after an application to the Minister, but in some cases they have not. I find it difficult to work out why some people are allowed in and some are not.
It is wrong that human rights are denied the people who lose their applications. Equally, it is undesirable that people who win do so by what appears to be ministerial whim.
There is a relationship between the British Nationality Act and the Immigration Rules. Unless the Government change this Immigration Rule before the Act comes into force on 1 January 1983, their statements that all British citizens have equal citizenship will be false. They stated clearly in their manifesto that the rights of all British citizens who are legally settled here are equal before the law whatever their race, colour or creed. Those who read the manifesto should have noticed that it did not refer to sex. Female British citizens who were not born here will be second-class citizens, because every other British citizen, male or female, will have the right to be joined by his or her spouse.
I have twice raised the issue during Home Office questions and judging from the answer that I received on Thursday, my point has been misunderstood. I am not speaking only about those women who are legally settled here. The rule clearly affects tens of thousands of people who settled here but who were not born in this country, the majority of whom are Asian women who came with their parents in the 1970s from Pakistan, India and East Africa. I deeply regret the rule and I hope that the Government will change it. I am especially anxious about those thousands of women out of the tens of thousands to whom I referred, who, as well as being legally settled here, are also United Kingdom and Colonies citizens and who will become full British citizens on the day that the Act is implemented. Those young women have acquired their British citizenship, although not born here, by registration as minors or by registration or naturalisation as adults. They will undoubtedly be British citizens when the Act comes into force on 1 January and, equally undoubtedly, they will be second-class citizens because they alone will not have the right to bring their husbands or their fiancés to Britain.
The Government must make a decision soon. One of their major complaints has been that the marriages or intended marriages involved are arranged quickly and that the partners do not know each other. Yet now, only six months before the operation of the law, the Government are still fobbing us off by saying, "Yes, we are considering that and fairly soon we shall do something".
However, the Home Secretary has given no inkling of the Government's intentions to do anything about the new rules even before the end of this Session. I do not know whether the Home Secretary intends that the new rules will come at the end of July, the end of October or the end of November. I fear that they may come as late as the middle of December. Whatever the timing, it is inadequate, since we are only six months away from the Act's implementation. The Government have been planning the Bill for a long time, and they have had the White Paper, in which the Bill's principles were spelt out, for nearly two years. They must make up their minds on a matter of vital importance to many British families here and abroad.
The Government have a dilemma. They must either admit that their statements, both in the manifesto and during the nationality Bill proceedings, that all British citizens are equal, were a cruel hoax on black British citizens, or they must scrap the racially and sexually discriminatory rule that they introduced two years ago. The Government owe it to us to tell us which way they intend to jump because it is unfair to leave so many families in suspense for so long.
My second point is about the general nature of the rules and the legislation. Many hon. Members will bring forward during the debate constituency cases where the rules, or the Minister's decision whether to exercise his discretion, may, jointly or separately, appear to be tragic, cruel or arbitrary. However, none of us are saying for a moment that unfortunate immigration decisions w ere riot made before 3 May 1979. We are not talking about nasty Ministers or nasty immigration officers, although some of us may have had suspicions in both quarters at various times. The House should not be considering that. The heart of the trouble lies in the Immigration Act 1971 and the rules that stem from it, which both Ministers and immigration officers must implement by law.
An important development in recent years and months is that the Labour Party is now committed to repealing the Act and replacing it with immigration laws that are riot racially or sexually discriminatory, but which respect family life and human dignity. That does not mean that we wish to abandon immigration controls, but that it is possible to remove the discriminatory and unfair aspects of the current controls.
Perhaps I may give some idea of the changes that I believe are necessary and that I hope will be adopted by the Labour Party during the next few months. First, we must incorporate into our law the United Nations Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees so that the entry of refugees is not discretionary but a matter of right. Secondly, to take up the Home Secretary's point about deportations and removals, there must be a right of appeal in the United Kingdom in all cases before someone is deported or removed. The Home Secretary mentioned the Filipino domestic workers, and I pay full tribute to the discretion that he exercised in respect of many of them. However, those who were removed were given the right of appeal from the Philippines—from the destitution and poverty that they had escaped. That right of appeal was a dead letter from the beginning and Ministers and immigration officers are well aware of it.
Thirdly, we must entrench the right of children to live with their parents in Britain. The cruel sole responsibility test that is now applied must be abolished. Children should have the right to live with their natural parents irrespective of tests that are arbitrary and almost impossible to prove.
Fourthly, the ludicrous restrictions on deciding whether an aged parent of someone living legally in Britain is destitute in another country and whether he has been sustained in that country by the child living here are inhumane and must be changed. The queue of dependants waiting to leave the Indian Sub-continent can be speeded up. I and my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) believe that the pool of people who wish to join the queue is finite. We should stop once and for all the queues, the sadness and the disruption to many lives. Those people merely wish to take up what should be their statutory right to join the rest of their families in Britain.
I have outlined some ways in which we can do more for family life than the lip service that is paid to it now. Immigration law must facilitate the arrival of those who wish to study and train in Britain and not, as at present, be an extra hurdle.
If those proposals are adopted by the Labour Party and implemented by the next Labour Government, they may result in more black people coming to live in Britain. We do not hide that fact, but we emphasise that the present Immigration Rules as implemented are not merely unfair in terms of civil and human rights, but a major and constant undermining of the security of black communities in Britain. If the families of black people cannot join them and visitors are not allowed to come to see them, they feel that they do not have the place in society that we on both sides of the House keep saying they have.
It is nonsense to suggest that we can move in any serious way towards racial harmony in this society if the rules for joining it are based on the colour of the skin of the applicants. We know that that is the situation at the moment.
For too long, hon. Members on both sides of the House have thought that the key issue in race relations was the number of black faces either coming into the country or already here. The truth is that, if numbers matter, it is the number of white racists and the number of us who, in the past in the House, have appeased those racists by the passing and implementation of the immigration laws and rules, that we are discussing tonight.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I am extremely grateful to be called at this stage of the debate. I shall be brief.
I back up what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. Friends. It is seriously defective in its drafting. I wonder whether the observation made by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) is correct. He said that the intention was to suggest that new regulations be introduced because, in the view of the Opposition, the present ones are inhumane. If that is not so, it is noteworthy, because, at least implicitly, it means that the Opposition believe that fundamentally the present immigration regulations are right.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friends on their amendment because, in so far as the present Immigration Rules approved by Parliament are applied, I genuinely believe that the Home Office, its officals and above all its Ministers do a good job in exceptionally difficult circumstances.
I do not think that anyone who has had seriously to deal with those matters can underestimate the complexity of the problems. On the one hand, there are the compassionate

arguments of those who rightly and understandably want, almost at all costs, families to be kept united. On the other hand, however, there is the fact that at present 3 million people or more are unemployed, yet despite that sad economic fact there are many parts of the world where economic circumstances are worse than ours. Therefore, the pressure for immigration to this country still increases. I pay tribute to the thoughtful way in which my right hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Home Secretary deal with the individual compassionate cases that we bring before them.
I draw attention once more to a specific and simple matter—the rights of British women to be joined by their spouses and fiancés in this country. I have raised the matter before on the motion for the Adjournment of the House for the Easter and May Day recesses. It was not just an April fool jape, although the debate took place on 1 April.
I suggested in that debate that the Government ought to make clear their view on the cases that the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and the National Council for Civil Liberties have brought before the European Commission on Human Rights in Strasbourg. Fundamental human rights are at stake. Since the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act, Parliament has made it clear that we believe that the rights of men and women in this country should be fundamentally the same. Those rights should be the same not just over the transmission of citizenship. Parliament agreed that through the passage of the British Nationality Act. British citizenship can now be transmitted through the female as through the male line. Since 1928, political rights have been the same for women as for men. We have equality of franchise. We are asking that equality of rights be extended to family life, too. It is as simple as that.
I was particularly interested to hear the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) adumbrate the three charges that he brought against the Government. In each case he referred to British citizens' rights. I specifically asked him about that, because the entitlement of Commonwealth citizens with the right of abode in this country to bring their families to join them have been the same as for British citizens provided that the Commonwealth citizens were settled in this country before the Immigration Act 1971 came into force in 1973. Interestingly and significantly, the Opposition referred specifically to the rights of British citizens. So shall I today.
It is wrong for there to be two categories of British citizenship—British citizenship acquired by birth and British citizenship acquired by naturalisation or registration. The implication of the present Immigrant Rules, particularly paragraphs 50 and 52, is that such a distinction is drawn. We accord to British women the right to bring their husbands or fiancés into this country for settlement provided that the women were either born in this country or have a parent who was born in this country. That can lead to division, even within families. There can be sisters whose individual circumstances of place of birth are different. Presumably Parliament intends that their rights to bring in a husband or fiancé to join them are different. That is inequitable and wrong.
That idea devalues the process of obtaining United Kingdom citizenship by naturalisation or registration. That is a malign fact because for many people the process of acquiring British citizenship, let us say by naturalisation,


can be the culmination of many years of aspiration. Parliament has laid down many clear and precise regulations on what has to be done to obtain that citizenship by naturalisation.
For example, the person concerned can be a refugee. He may have been able to escape from his country of origin only with great difficulty and after extreme hardship. We know of many such cases in Eastern Europe, such as people fleeing from the Ukraine, Poland and elsewhere. We are saying that the women who have acquired British citizenship by naturalisation are not to be entitled to bring in their husbands for settlement here. That is wrong.
I gave this quotation during the Adjournment debate to which I referred. It is noteworthy that the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament declared in March last year that it was
of the opinion that the United Kingdom Government's new immigration rules may contravene the European Convention on Human. Rights—is further of the opinion that they may also contravene the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in community law.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman in his extremely good speech—it is the first from the Conservative Back Benches. Does he agree that the rule also contravenes the Conservative Party's election manifesto which stated that all citizens lawfully settled here shall be treated equally before the law? Does he agree that it did not distinguish between male and female citizens?

Mr. Wilkinson: That may be so. I have not examined that point. The circumstances of the country have changed. For example, there are now more unemployed people than there were. We must face the consequences honestly. I shall deal with the specifics of the issue.
I mentioned the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament with a purpose. It is that I shall also draw attention to the EEC—the Treaty of Rome dimension of the issue. There is now the extraordinary circumstance whereby a woman, a British citizen who does not have a parent who was born here and was not herself born here can, under the freedom of movement provisions of the Treaty of Rome travel to another EEC country, settle there, take up work and bring in her spouse for settlement. Yet when she tries to return to the United Kingdom, the only EEC country of which she has citizenship, she is presumably to be told by the entry certificate officer at Heathrow airport that she must be separated from her husband. That is extraordinary and wrong. I earnestly ask the Government to re-examine the matter. That specific point in the Immigration Rules should be reviewed so that there is no longer a risk that Britain may be found to be in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights to which it is a signatory.

Mr. William Pitt: I am glad that the official Opposition are lining up behind the continuing condemnation of the iniquitous 1968 and 1971 Acts. That legislation and its continued application tend to institutionalise racialism in Britain. The British Nationality Act 1981 is also iniquitous. The Liberal Party has consistently opposed that legislation and called for its repeal. We are not a nation of primary immigration. Yet the Government are still obsessed with figures. Document reference MN 82/2 of the OPCS monitor said:

In 1981 for the second successive year, the number of immigrants fell sharply and the lowest annual total since the International Passenger Survey (IPS) began in 1964 was recorded. Compared with 1980, the number fell by 12 per cent. from 174 thousand to 153 thousand … The net outflow of 55 thousand in 1980 thus rose to 79 thousand, a figure exceeded only by the peak of 1974.
Yet measures that were instituted as a response to unreasoning pressure are still being applied.
I remind the House of the length of time that British passport holders in India have had to wait for quota vouchers. In November 1977 they were expected to wait some three and half years. By May 1979 that time had increased to nearly four and a half years. By November 1979 that time was approaching five years. By May 1980 it had reached five years and was increasing. By May 1982 it was more than six years. Those people are United Kingdom passport holders. Their number is finite, yet they must wait longer and longer. No doubt some of them will never be able to enter.
In a letter to the Foreign Office in June, my noble Friend Lord Avebury said:
Not only is the waiting time continuing to increase, but to my great astonishment, even those in the priority queue, shown by the dotted line, are waiting longer than ever.
The "dotted line" is a reference to the graph.
One of the greatest misuses of immigration legislation concerns husbands and fiancés. Much has been said about them today. I am puzzled about the difference, in terms of citizenship, between a person who is born here and a person who has been naturalised. Conservative Members have related stories of Polish or Ukrainian people who have come to Britain as refugees. I have friends among them. We have taken them into our hearts. We have also received refugees from Uganda—from one of the most iniquitous regimes of this century. When those women become naturalised, they will, under the present regulations, be unable to bring in their husbands or finances.

Mr. Stanbrook: The hon. Gentleman's latter point is untrue. If the hon. Gentleman knew a little more about the subject and read the appropriate regulations, he would understand that we are discussing the automatic right of such persons to come to Britain. Most of therr come anyway under the normal provisions. It is incorrect to suggest that they will not be able to enter Britain.

Mr. Pitt: That is what I am saying. I am asking what is the difference between the citizenship of a person who is born here and a person who becomes naturalised. To talk about automatic rights is to split hairs.
In my experience, women who are not born here are unable to bring their husbands or fiancés to Britain under the law as it stands. When the present rules were introduced, The Guardian, in its home affairs column, reported that immigration would be reduced by "by between 1,000 and 2,000" people. I should not have thought that is was worth setting up the necessary bureaucracy for the net saving of 1,000 or 2,000 people. It must merely give extra work to what the Home Secretary described as already overloaded immigration officers at Heathrow's terminal 3, Dover, Newhaven and the rest. The same is true for adjudicators. The rules are iniquitous.
I do not wish my noble Friend Lord Avebury to be the star of the occasion, but he warned twice in the other place of the possibility of the present legislation being questioned in the European Court of Human Rights. On 11 December 1979, Lord Belstead said:


We believe that we have strong arguments with which to justify those proposals if they should be challenged."—[Official Report, House of Lords. 11 December 1979; Vol. c. 1126.]
On 20 March 1980 the noble Lord said:
the Government believe that they are powerful arguments, and would carry weight with the Commission should the need arise".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 1980; Vol. 407, c. 425.]
We now know what is happening in the European Court of Human Rights.
Apart from the problem of fiancés and husbands, one of the most pressing problems for Members of Parliament is that of visitors to Britain. In the past nine months I have been continually surprised by the telephone calls and other representations from members of my community. Other hon. Members will have had many such requests. People honourably come here to visit. They may have entry clearance, but an officer at the terminal may decide that they do not qualify, so they have to go cap in hand to a Member of Parliament, or to someone else who may be able to use his influence, to enable them to stay here for a holiday. Last year I visited friends in Canada on holiday and no questions were asked of me. When Canadians come here for similar purposes no questions are asked of them. Most people whose bona fides are queried have black or brown skins.

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman suggests that immigration officers are unnecessarily harsh in their questioning. Does he ask us to believe that every visitor, of whatever colour, comes here only for the reason that he states? In every society there are bad pennies, so questions should be asked.

Mr. Pitt: I accept that in every society there are bad pennies, but I believe that the vast majority of people who say that they are coming here on holiday are on holiday.
I imagine that the immigrant advisory service has kindly provided most hon. Members with figures. Let me give the figures for the proportion of visitors not admitted for six months. From the United States it was one in 165 and from the old Commonwealth it was one in 97, but from India it was one in 10, from Bangladesh one in nine and a half, and from Nigeria one in seven. Let us consider refusals per thousand. Ghana has an all-time record of 34·25. For India the figure was 6·28, for Bangladesh, 7·16 and for Sri Lanka, 7·27, whereas for Australia it was 0·26, for Malta 0·2 and for New Zealand 0·01. What criteria are applied to people from the old and New Commonwealth?

Mr. John Carlisle: I believe that the figure that the hon. Gentleman gave for the United States was one in 160, although his figure was rather less than that given by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). The figures drop down the scale to people from Pakistan and Bangladesh. Is not the number of immigrants from America and other places minimal compared with the number from India, Pakistan and so on? There is bound to be suspicion and questions if only because of the proportion, let alone for other reasons.

Mr. Pitt: I do not accept that. We must consider each case on its merits. By and large, we should accept the stated purpose of a visit, be the visitor black, white or brown. I repeat that I believe that 99 per cent. of people come here honourably.
It is a condemnation of our system that we are wasting valuable parliamentary time talking about the issue. We should by now have sorted out our repressive immigration legislation.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): The hon. Gentleman said that he believes that 99 per cent. of visitors are genuine. If we take one category, the Indians, only 0·6 per cent. are refused entry. The hon. Gentleman is being less than generous. About 99·4 per cent. of Indian visitors are admitted.

Mr. Pitt: I shall accept the Minister's figure, as I am not a mathematician.
I come to the bureaucracy and the hassle. People come cap in hand to get Members of Parliament to write letters for someone to come here on holiday. I have a collection of such letters. One constituent, Ramesh Thakore, wanted his uncle to stay. He was not the sponsor. The sponsor could not find his Member of Parliament. The legitimate sponsor form had been returned. I wrote a sheaf of letters to the Home Office. The time that it took the Home Office to investigate the uncle's bona fides and the whole matter enabled him to have a holiday of two and a half months here. He then went home. Although he had not stayed for as long as he intended, he had his holiday.
In another letter my noble Friend Lord Avebury told the Minister of State:
I propose, therefore, that you abolish entry certificates for short visits, granting everybody 6 months' leave to enter, with no right of appeal against refusal of an extension. This would cut out an enormous amount of red tape, since 99·9 per cent. of those who now have to obtain entry certificates for short visits are bona fide visitors.
The Minister said that he has 1,200 letters. How many are from hon. Members interceding on behalf of people who have come here for a holiday and wish to return?
If we had automatic entry for six months, it would reduce the load on Ministers and on immigration officers. When people reach the end of the six months, they would have no right of appeal and would have to return. But 99·9 per cent. would do so anyway, and the law could properly and effectively deal with the remainder.
We question the legislation and its implementation. It leaves minority groups uncertain about their future and unhappy about the country that they have adopted. It is time drastically to review the 1968 and 1971 Acts and to assess properly their effect on good race relations and the structure of a multiracial society. Until we do that we shall continue to breed a lack of confidence among minority communities, who, in being here, in their culture and in many other ways, give our society so much. That is why my party supports the official Opposition motion.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) said that Britain was not subject to primary immigration. He was almost claiming credit for that. The Liberal Party voted consistently against all legislation on immigration control in 1962, 1968 and 1971. There is some consistency, but it is that of the open door allowing in all who wish to enter. I add my tribute to that of the Home Secretary to immigration officers and civil servants who work in the Home Office and deal with the many queries that hon. Members address to them. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary's robust speech and congratulate him and my


right hon. Friend the Minister of State on their work. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State knows that we do not always see eye to eye on these matters.
We should be grateful to the Opposition for making available on of their Supply days to discuss the Immigration Rules. Immigration is not often discussed and we had an extended debate in March 1980 on the Immigration Rules only because the Opposition provided extra time. The Opposition have restricted the debate so as to exclude the extent of immigration particularly from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan and its impact and consequences upon the United Kingdom. Their motion states:
That this House regrets the increasingly oppressive operation of immigration regulations".
One can assume from that that they wish to restrict debate on the widely expressed view in the country that we allow in far too many immigrants. The Opposition, however, would welcome the implementation of the existing regulations
in a way which is consistent with the standards of humanity, compassion and respect for family life in a civilised community.

Mr. Bidwell: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a wealth of experience in these matters. Does he intervene, as other hon. Members do, to help people in the humanitarian way that he has been talking about if their colour is black or brown?

Mr. Proctor: On a number of occasions—my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will confirm this—I have written to him and other Ministers on behalf of my constituents who may be of another colour. I do that on the basis not of the colour of their skin but on whether the complaint is worth forwarding to the Minister.
The clear inference from the motion is that a Labour Home Secretary would allow in more immigrants rather than fewer. The Opposition do not oppose the Immigration Rules, and the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) said as much when he said that he would like to have seen the words "to change them" in the motion. The Opposition oppose not the rules but the way in which they are implemented. There is no commitment to redraw them in the unlikely event of the Opposition being returned to office. All action would be by the exercise of administrative decisions.
It may come as a surprise to some people to hear that there are no holes in the Immigration Rules through which immigrants pour. There is one big statutory hole and that is the provision regarding the entry of dependents. I know that this will not find favour with many hon. Members, but I believe that that should be dealt with by law and that the Immigration Rules should be amended. All immigrants, other than dependents, enter annually in their thousands through the exercise of some administrative discretion.
In the motion the Opposition have correctly located the battlefield on the subject of immigration. It is not the Immigration Acts but the Immigration Rules and the exercise of their discretion by the Home Secretary and his Ministers. The law defines certain categories of people who may enter the United Kingdom as of right whether or not the Government like it. The law does not define the categories of people who may not enter the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary may let anyone into the United Kingdom by permit. It is the extent to which Home Secretaries issue those permits that fuels immigration and

is in the minds of those who tabled the motion. They wish to increase the numbers of people entering the United Kingdom. I wish the numbers to decline.
I have looked at the Home Office figures for 1981 published in "The Control of Immigration Statistics United Kingdom 1981". In table 15 there is a column showing the numbers of illegal immigrants, including Commonwealth citizens and foreign nationals, detected during the year on or after 1 January. The figures show that for 1976 the number was 390, for 1977 810, for 1978 930, for 1979 990, for 1980 1,620 and for 1981 990. Did the figure increase in 1980 because of action taken in 1979 and 1980, at the request of the Government, to boost the detection of illegal immigrants? Have the guidelines to which the Home Secretary referred had the effect of reducing action taken against illegal immigrants? I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will shed some light on those figures.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West, who has abandoned the debate after making his contribution, referred to a multiracial society. The April-May contact brief of the Conservative Political Centre contains the words:
It is a fact that Britain is multiracial.
How remarkable that no Prime Minister, no party and no Parliament informed our people of the policy decision upon which that fact was established. Still less did they seek full-hearted consent to the event. Silence accompanied the massive immigration from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan over three decades, as humbug now greets its consequences.
Foreign nationals and refugees from around the world have chosen to live, usually in relatively small numbers, in the United Kingdom. Throughout our history they have done so, especially in our capital city, which used to be engagingly described as cosmopolitan. That is not what is meant by multiracial. That term is intended to refer to a society comprising a relatively large and rapidly growing proportion of citizens from Pakistan and the New Commonwealth—which is the Commonwealth less Australia, Canada and New Zealand—particularly concentrated in our inner cities and urban conurbations.
Recent statistics taken from the 1981 census reveal those concentrations by showing that the proportion of the usually resident population living in households whose head was born in the New Commonwealth or Pakistan was 15 per cent. in Birmingham, 15·4 per cent. in Wolverhampton, 21·3 per cent. in Leicester and 18·8 per cent. in inner London. Within London boroughs, the figures were 23 per cent. in Lambeth, 25 per cent. in Ealing, 26·5 per cent. in Newham, 27·5 per cent. in Hackney, 29·4 per cent. in Haringey and 33 per cent. in Brent. Of course, those figures underestimate the true position, because those living in households where the head was born in the United Kingdom to a mother from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan are recorded among the indigenous population.
The NCWP communities are growing through immigration and natural increase. The Home Office has recently produced immigration statistics for 1981. "Immigration down by 11,500" was the intended cry. Any reduction is to be welcomed, but the achievement is actually that total acceptances for settlement on arrival and on removal of time limit for the New Commonwealth and Pakistan were 31,000 in 1981 compared with 33,700 in 1980, 37,000 in 1979 and 32,200 in 1973, the last full year


of the previous Conservative Administration. In other words, in eight years we have reduced NCWP immigration by 1,200, or 3·7 per cent.
Revisions to the Immigration Rules were introduced on 1 March 1980, but, unless I am mistaken—perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will correct me if I am—there has been little effect on acceptances in any settlement category in 1980 or 1981 and the full effect of some removal of time limit categories may not be reflected in the figures for many years. Together with overstayers and illegal entrants, the addition to the NCWP population is about 50,000 per annum and portends a further ⅓ million to ½ million in the next decade.
Even if my parliamentary colleagues can find some comfort in the figures for 1981, I have to disillusion them on the question of natural increase. We have to wait until later in the year for the 1981 birth figures, but the 1980 figure was 55,000 births to mothers born in the New Commonwealth and Pakistan. The birth figures become less reliable and understate the true picture because an increasing number of younger women of child-bearing age are of NCWP ethnic origin but were born in the United Kingdom. Information on births to such women is not collected at birth registration. They are regarded as indigenous births.

Mr. Edward Lyons: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. None of us wants to interfere with the right of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) to freedom of speech, but the debate is about Immigration Rules and I should be interested to know how natural increase has anything to do with that subject. It is already 7·5 pm and many hon. Members still wish to speak. Cannot the hon. Gentleman be brought within the rules of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), but I have not yet heard anything that is out of order.

Mr. Proctor: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for upholding my right of free speech in the House. If we cannot have free speech on the subject in the House, we cannot have it anywhere.
I was saying that information on births to NCWP mothers who were born in this country is not collected at birth registration. They are regarded as indigenous births. In 1980 they totalled about 10,000, between 1981 and 1986 a further 70,000 will fall into that category and there will be another 110,000 between 1986 and 1991. Deaths in the NCWP population totalled about 6,000 per annum when I last checked the figures. That gives us a natural increase figure of about 60,000 a year, which will increase rapidly in the next decade and portends a further ½ million to ¾ million births by 1991. It is against that background that we must address ourselves to the Immigration Rules.
To those whose response to the figures is "So what?", I quote the words of the late Sir Ronald Bell:
If everybody is potentially equal, if every definable group of human beings is potentially equal to every other group, and if qualitative judgments are iniquitious or even illegal, numbers alone must count. If numbers alone count, the Western peoples are doomed. The rate of increase among their populations is much slower and that factor remains constant."—[Official Report, 21 December 1981; Vol. 15, c. 654.]

I quote also from a speech that I made in my constituency in January and which was fiercely attacked at the time:
Anniversary riots are already in preparation, vigilante gangs are at the ready, the Northern Ireland dimension of the bomb and bullet has already been noted; within a few years 'no go' areas for the police will necessitate the deployment of army units on the streets of our capital and other big cities and the imposition of night curfews and other profoundly un-English authoritarian measures".
The Home Secretary has spoken of his fear of anniversary riots. Newspapers have documented the vigilante groups. One of my hon. Friends in Committee proposed a night curfew for young law-breakers. The police have admitted that there are sensitive areas. Lord Scarman, referring to the Brixton riots, said in the House of Lords:
if that thin blue line had been overwhelmed … there is no other way of dealing with it except the awful ultimate requirement of calling in the Army".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 March 1982; Vol. 428, c. 1006.]
It is clear that the proponents of multiracialism as a creed, and frequently as a lucrative career, are engaged in a sustained attack on authority, law and order and on our way of life in the United Kingdom as we know it and as we want it to remain.
The Immigration Rules, detailed though they may be, have profound implications for people who live in the inner city areas. There are certainly profound implications for people who live in my constituency where many have tried to get away from the inner city problems by moving to Basildon. That applies to other new towns.
Immigration has unsettled our institutions and traditions that have been nurtured over the centuries and abruptly changed the complexion and texture of our national life. Immigration makes us assume grave burdens and incur grave risks that would otherwise not arise. Immigration is infrequently debated in Parliament. My constituents, and those of other right hon. and hon. Members, have had no say in a matter that has altered intimately, radically, profoundly and irrevocably the character, face and cohesion of the life of our society and the way in which they want to live it.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friends for tabling such a bold and firm amendment to the Opposition's motion. I believe that it would be fairer to black and white alike in our country if we were firmer.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that right hon. and hon. Members have no choice over the order in which they speak, but I had hoped that I might have an opportunity this evening of speaking after a more reasonable speaker—the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). I agreed with 80 per cent. of his speech, particularly the part dealing with United Kingdom female nationals.
It is often my unfortunate lot in the Chamber to follow a nasty speech. This time it is the speech of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), which could equally have been made by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) or the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). There are times, strange though it may appear to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, when I feel sorry for the Tory Ministers at the Home Office. If the Home Secretary and the Minister of State have to call such hon. Members their hon. Friends one begins to understand the backbone of steel that they require to overcome the desire for repatriation and registration of dependents. Perhaps on some private occasion I can


congratulate the Home Secretary and the Minister of State for holding back the racialist nonsense that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Basildon. His speech was more appropriate to Pretoria than to the Mother of Parliaments.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman referred to repatriation. There are some who would look upon that as resettlement. For example, elderly people in this country might want to return to their country of origin, having come her for perfectly good reasons, but cannot afford to do so. Is it not fair, decent, liberal and humane to provide resources and assist them to return? I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman should be against such a policy.

Mr. Marshall: I am sure that the Minister of State will provide his hon. Friend with the appropriate information during the debate or at some other time. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that funds and foundations exist to help people who wish to return to their country of origin. I have dealt with such cases and I am sure that the Minister of State can give examples.
The Chair has been wise to allow the debate to go wider than the strict interpretation of the Immigration Rules. Our debate has called into question actions and decisions made over the past 20 years of immigration control. One can clearly see that over that time all Governments, whether Labour or Conservative, have a bad record on controlling immigration, and more particularly the immigration of United Kingdom nationals.
The debate reflects the fact that the Government are nastier than their predecessors in implementing the Immigration Rules. The Government follow the instincts and attitudes of the hon. Member for Basildon who, in some senses, reflects the spirit and instincts of the Prime Minister. It was the Prime Minister who gave credibility to the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Basildon when she referred to the swamping of the United Kingdom by people with black skins, although in many cases they are citizens of the United Kingdom.
It is unfortunate that such attitudes breed the suspicion referred to by the hon. Member for Basildon. That suspicion is also aroused among the immigrant community. The concept of swamping has lead to a slavish obsession with figures and the need to show that immigration is declining. The hon. Gentleman displayed that obsession. It was as a result of the need to show the decline in immigration with figures that the Government introduced the new Immigration Rules in March 1980.
I agree with my hon. Friends who have made the charge, and made it stick, that the Immigration Rules introduced in March 1980 are sexist and covertly, if not overtly, racially discriminatory. I further support the charge made by my hon. Friends that the rules as applied to dependent relatives living overseas are inhumane.

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman refers to Conservative Members' obsession with figures. However, does he not agree that when the Labour Government introduced the Commonwealth Immigration Act 1968 they could have been accused of being obsessed with figures, or perhaps the Labour Government were reflecting the great build-up of opinion that immigration was at that time virtually out of control?

Mr. Marshall: I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley),

who was a member of that Labour Government and who also, I believe, served for some time in the Home Office, would accept that some of the decisions taker by the Labour Government were perhaps racially discriminatory. We are now seeking to reverse the undesirable decisions that were taken by the Labour Government of 1964–70.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) is correct in saying that the 1968 Act, which limited the rights of United Kingdom nationals to come into this country, was a step in the wrong direction. The Labour Party's new Immigration Rules and nationality legislation seek to ensure that those people who have a claim to British citizenship—not just those resident in the United Kingdom—who will be defined in our new legislation, should have the absolute right of entry into the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook has already outlined, both in the Chamber and elsewhere, the terms on which British citizenship will be given by a future Labour Government.
The 1980 rules were introduced in the full flush of the Tory victory of 1979 and reflected the real spite apparent in the Tory election pledges of that year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook is correct in saving that the Government introduced a new distinction between female United Kingdom nationals—on the one hand, those who were born in the United Kingdom or had a parent born in the United Kingdom and, on the other, those United Kingdom nationals neither of whose parents was born in the United Kingdom or who were not themselves born in the United Kingdom.
The rules make it clear that if one falls into the latter category, one has no right to fetch a husband or fiancé into the United Kingdom. That is overtly racially discriminatory. In 99·9 cases out of a hundred it will be a black female citizen rather than a white who is affected. I suggest that the hon. Member for Orpington reads the Immigration Rules.

Mr. Stanbrook: There is all the difference in the world between automatic right of entry to this country and the right to apply and to qualify according to conditions set down by the home country. Most of the cases quoted are those where entry is obtained. We are talking about those who do not qualify and whom the hon. Gentleman would like to see come in willy nilly.

Mr. Marshall: I am conscious, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the passage of time. That will be the last intervention that I am prepared to allow. The hon. Gentleman tries to put words into my mouth to the effect that women have an absolute right to bring husbands into the United Kingdom. That is not true under the Immigration Rules. I am saying that females who have a right to apply to fetch husbands into the United Kingdom must themselves have been born in the United Kingdom or must have a parent who was born in the United Kingdom. Unless they fall into those categories, they have no right to apply. They may ask the Home Secretary to exercise his discretion for a particular purpose. I suggest, however, that the hon. Gentleman reads the Immigration Rules.
I believe that the Immigration Rules are overtly racialist and that they were intended to be racialist in the sense that they would affect black females rather than white females. I am also concerned about the application of the Immigration Rules to dependent relatives. It now seems to me virtually impossible for anyone legally settled in the


United Kingdom to have their aged dependent relatives come and settle with them in the United Kingdom even in the case where the near family—sons and daughters of the dependent relative living overseas—are all residing in the United Kingdom.
Dependent relatives have to satisfy two conditions. First, they have to prove that they are dependent on the person sponsoring them in the United Kingdom. The second and more pernicious qualification is that they must have a substantially lower standard of living than that prevailing in the country in which they are at present living. This implies that the children living in the United Kingdom would have to stand idly by and watch their parent or parents in destitution in the country in which they are at present living. That would require a degree of heartlessness by the sponsors living in this country that I have never come across in the immigrant community.
Tory Ministers are saying to people that if they wish their parents to have the chance to come and live in the United Kingdom as dependent relatives, they must stop sending remittances to them from the United Kingdom because those remittances enable them to enjoy a standard of living that is the average in the country where they are at present living. It is therefore only by stopping remittances to the parent or parents, so that their income goes below the average in the country in which they live, that the parent or parents can qualify as dependent relatives.
My impression is that the Government will take action over women in the new Immigration Rules if only to reduce the ability of men to bring in wives or fiancées to that at present enjoyed by women. I hope, however, that the Government will be prepared to show more humanitarian concern to dependent relatives. The Home Secretary and the Minister of State have been successful to some degree on two fronts. They have managed to take the register of the agenda. They have also been able and willing to fight off the blandishments of people like the hon. Members for Basildon and Northampton, North to introduce some kind of forced repatriation.

Mr. Proctor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He slipped the words "forced repatriation" into his remarks. I have never advocated forced repatriation. I hope that he will accept that and make it clear.

Mr. Marshall: I am willing to withdraw the words "forced repatriation" and to substitute the words "voluntary repatriation". The Home Secretary and the Minister of State have been prepared to refuse all blandishments to introduce any form of repatriation whether voluntary or forcible.
There is a third matter on which I think Ministers could have been more forthcoming. A number of hon. Members including myself have continually asked the Home Secretary to be prepared to transfer some of the quota vouchers from East Africa, which are at present undersubscribed, to the waiting list on the Sub-continent. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) was correct in saying that the waiting time on the Sub-continent for a special voucher is, on average, about six years. I know of some cases that have gone as far as eight, nine or 10 years.
Much misery and hardship could be removed if the Home Office were prepared to transfer some of the vouchers that have not been taken up in East Africa to the Indian Sub-continent. If that were done, a great deal could be done to remove what the official Opposition spokesman referred to as falling below
the standards of humanity, compassion and respect for family life in a civilised community.
It would ensure that families were united far more quickly than they have been hitherto.

Mr. John Carlisle: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who has a constituency somewhat similar in character and background to mine. Some 20 per cent. of my electorate is of ethnic origin. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a similar, if not slightly higher, proportion in his constituency. We represent parts of the Midlands which have experienced the large-scale immigration that has had the most dramatic effect on our towns and cities. I have sympathy with his view, because he speaks with experience, as I do. However, I begin to cross swords with the hon. Gentleman when he parades the bleeding heart that has been paraded by Opposition Members who have spoken, including the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
The Opposition's motion is innocuous in itself. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook took my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to task on the very wording of the motion. I suggest that the wording is not only unfair, but out of character with the beliefs held by many Labour Members. It has been interesting to hear the divergence of opinion put forward by Labour Members, not least by the hon. Member for Leicester, South. He hinted that had he been in the House in 1968 when the Race Relations Act was passed under a Labour Government, he could have been in the Lobby against his Government on that measure.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not need to explain to the House my views on nationality. Had I been in the House in 1968, I would have done that. However, as the hon. Gentleman has picked up my comment on this matter, I should point out that, if he reads the reports of the British Nationality Bill Committee of last year, he will see that I said that all United Kingdom nationals who do not have the right of entry into the United Kingdom should be given full British citizenship with the right of entry and that those who become British overseas citizens without the right of entry from 1 January 1983 should be full citizens with the right of entry.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman has confirmed my opinion. He will no doubt be grateful to me for allowing him to make clear his opinion. It gives Conservative Members an opportunity to know where the Opposition stand.
The speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) was as predictable as usual. It showed that the Liberal Party has followed an open door policy on immigration over the past two decades. One shudders to think what might happen if it or any of its Alliance friends actually came to power.
I must take issue with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook on some of the things that he said. It was interesting that, at the beginning of his speech, he


criticised the Government's amendment. He started by saying "We", but went on to say "I wish to offer comments." There is no doubt that there are many divisions on this policy, as there are on any policy put forward by the Labour Party on this issue. That is why the motion is innocuous. However, it will not have the support of many Labour Party supporters—those who are left. As hon. Members know, I represent one of the most marginal seats in the country. I often come into contact with those from across the political spectrum. I suggest that if this motion were known to the Labour Party's supporters—not least those of ethnic backgrounds and those who come into contact with their local Members of Parliament and the Home Office—many would disagree with it.
I endorse the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) about the Minister of State, our right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). No man has tried harder in the past three years to be fair and compassionate. His civil servants have assisted him ably. The various aspersions cast by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook on immigration officials, who are doing an extremely difficult job both here and abroad, were disgraceful. When they read his words in Hansard they will be upset that he and other spokesmen for the Opposition on this subject should cast such unfair aspersions on them. The Labour Party should note what has been said tonight.
I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon in thinking that primary immigration has been considerably reduced. Secondary immigration is affected by the rules. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook accused the Government of being "obsessed with illegals" and talked of a "handful of illegal entrants". That is incorrect. It shows a naivety on his part. He and the House know, as do many right hon. and hon. Members with constituencies with as large an ethnic minority as mine that illegal entry still occurs.
It is always difficult to find out whether the number is small or large. The amnesties granted by the previous Labour Government on two occasions gave false hopes to many who now think that they can come here illegally and benefit from an amnesty. I welcome the strong views expressed during the election campaign and tonight by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He said that we shall be unremitting in our attitude towards illegal immigrants.
There is nothing more unfair to those already here than those who arrive here illegally. The amnesties have done immeasurable damage to race relations. I find that immigrant leaders, to whom I speak frequently, are as forthright as the Government in condemning those who try to enter the country illegally.
I wish to take one particular aspect of these rules—visitors. The picture painted by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and by other Labour Members was that every applicant who wished to come to this country, perhaps for a holiday, was genuine. Have Labour Members accepted the pleas of those at a port or airport to represent their cases as I have? For example, the visitor may have requested a time limit of four weeks for a holiday and the Home Office may have allowed him to come for four weeks. How many times have hon. Members received requests for help to get an extention of time?
My experience, which of course is not as great as that of the hon. Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell)

and York (Mr. Lyon), is that many such cases come back after the time allowed and ask for further time. Obviously, people become suspicious. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook suggested that immigration authorities hounded the people coming in and did not believe the genuineness of their reasons, but it is hardly surprising, in view of the numerous requests for extensions of the original time, that officials are suspicious about others coming in.

Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman, from what he admits is his limited experience of dealing with such cases, said that those who have been admitted after some difficulties have applied for an extension of their visits. Will he tell us, again from his experience as a Member of Parliament, how many of the people he has dealt with and who were admitted as visitors came back and said that they wanted to stay on permanently in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) misheard what I said. I did not say that they came back and said that they wanted to stay permanently. I said that they wanted to extend their stay.

Mr. Winnick: I did not mishear at all, with respect to the hon. Gentleman. How many came back and asked him, having come in as visitors, not for an extension to stay longer—after all, that is not the greatest crime in the world, because there may be all kinds of reasons for wanting to stay on—but to stay in the United Kingdom permanently?

Mr. Carlisle: Obviously, I cannot give the exact figures, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to do so. I can tell him that several have come back and applied, having come into the country. Opposition Members seem to forget that coming here as a visitor is a very easy way to get into the country. They then extend their stay, and hope that by some means of appeal—to their Member of Parliament, through the courts, or some other means—they can extend their stay. They may not even have wanted to extend their stay, but may have changed their minds, having seen what life here was like.
I question the vast appeal procedure that exists. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook virtually complained that under the appeals scheme they could not slay very long. In my opinion, that is nonsense. A student in my constituency came here as a visitor for one month and left last Christmas, having been here for about nine years. Originally, he came here for four weeks as a visitor. I am certain that if Opposition Members look into their files, they will find similar cases.
The greatest tragedy of all involves those whom we cannot count. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that people come in and then disappear. In the great conurbations of the Midlands, and in our large towns and cities, in the communities that they go to, it is not difficult for them to disappear and to survive by one means or another. Moonlighting is not confined to the white indigenous population. I have evidence in my town of the existence—certainly in the past—of cheap black labour, and that labour is available to employers w ho are unscrupulous enough to take it. Let Opposition Members who sit with hands on hearts and say that every person who comes through Heathrow, Newhaven or wherever is a


genuine visitor, remember that people do come into the country illegally in that way, and that the Government are absolutely right to use all their efforts to try to remove those people.
If Opposition Members are intent, as they obviously are, to represent the views of people of ethnic origin—in some cases they seem to think that it is their sole right to do so in this House—I wonder whether they have asked the immigrant leaders what their views would be if the Government's policy were changed, certainly on the lines proposed by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West, and if the doors were opened. Immigrants themselves would be hurt more than any other sector of the community if large numbers of immigrants came into certain areas, and it is natural for them to go to the areas where their fellow countrymen live. There is nothing wrong in that. We would do the same if we went abroad as immigrants. It is my experience that if large numbers came in, whether legally or illegally, they would put an enormous strain on local resources and on the people already there.
The people there are probably as adamant against large-scale immigration, or the swamping that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester, South, as those of us in the rest of the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon said, the British public was never asked whether it wanted such large numbers of immigrants in the first place.
In my opinion, the motion is an insult. It is an insult to the officials who try extremely hard to apply the rules. After all, they are paid by us to do so. It is an insult to the immigrant community leaders who understand the problems. They realise that large numbers of people will bring large numbers of problems with them. It is also an insult to Members of this House, many of whom spend long hours and much effort in trying to represent the cases of people whom often they have never seen and possibly people whom they will never see again, some of whom have only a tenuous connection with their constituencies.
For Opposition Members to complain about the newish policy of the Home Office whereby Members of Parliament should deal with their constituency problems is nonsense. Hon. Members know that it has happened in the past. Certainly, it happened to me once, when another constituency Member—incidentally, of another political party—tried to interfere in a case in which I was seeking to represent the views of my constituents. An enormous amount of work is involved, and for the Opposition to treat it as lightly as they have, and in such an insulting manner, belittles them as a party and those whom they purport to represent.
I fully support the Government amendment. It is a fair and firm amendment. I support the immigration policy of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The numbers of people coming in were too many. These are fair rules. Certainly, there will be anomalies. Certainly, there will be odd cases, which right hon. and hon. Members have instanced. There will be exceptions, and painful decisions will have to be made, but I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his team are taking decisions humanely, compassionately and fairly, and with the greatest respect to all those who intend to come here.

7.48

Mr. George Morton: The hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) asked whether we on these Benches listened to the views of the community leaders on immigration policy. I assure him that on many occasions I have listened to many complaints about the attitude of the Home Office, as represented by its officials, and their apparent distrust of Asian business men who have been abroad on business and have come back to their homes, and of their relatives corning here on visits from Pakistan and elsewhere. They have repeatedly told me that they are deeply concerned about, and hurt by, the attitude of some officials and the support that they have from Ministers. They are not asking for no immigration control. They are asking for the "firm but fair" control to which the Government amendment refers but which we fear does not exist.
The Conservative Party has always presented the issue in terms of numbers and there has been a lot of talk about that. Therefore, I make no apology for basing my speech on individual cases which clearly bring home the effect of the rules and their implementation.
Mrs. Malik is a constituent of mine who was born in Karachi in 1954. She came to the United Kingdom at the age of six and was educated in Manchester, obtaining a degree from Manchester university. She is now a lecturer in mathematics at a college of further education in the city.
Mrs. Malik visited Pakistan in 1978 and became engaged to a resident there. She married him in 1980. He is not entitled to join her in the United Kingdom under the present rules. He has applied for permission to join his wife permanently, but he has little chance of success, other than at the Home Secretary's discretion. He applied after the marriage in 1980 and had an interview in February 1982. Mrs. Malik is now waiting for a further interview. In the meantime, knowing that it would be a long time before the final approval could be given, he applied for permission to come on a visit to see his wife. That was refused because he was already applying for permission to stay permanently.
It is unusual, particularly in a Muslim household, for the woman to be a breadwinner. Conservative Members might say that it is Mrs. Malik's duty to join her husband and give up her career. However, I do not think that the Government would accept that argument. That women should be given equality in some respect is certainly the reasoning of the British Nationality Act.
Another case concerns Mr. Nagvi who came here as a student. He later married and settled here. He and his wife now have three children. It was only when they applied for naturalisation that his immigration position was found to be in doubt.
Mr. Nagvi left the United Kingdom before he was reported because he did not want that on his record. He now has no entitlement of entry to join his wife because she was not born here. His wife and children stayed on, as they are entitled to do, but as they no longer have the income which he brought in from his small business they are now dependent on the Department of Health and Social Security. Far from his presence being a charge on the State, as the Government might argue in certain cases, his absence is causing such a charge.
In those cases the rules can be seen to be unreasonable. It is not just their implementation that is at issue, although that is the case in my first example. Those are personal tragedies that arise from the commitment to cut numbers.
Other cases have already been mentioned. There is the problem of elderly relatives and visitors. It is wrong that ethnic minorities have to accept treatment that would be quite unacceptable to the white community. I cannot imagine the reaction if those of my white constituents who visit their relations in Canada or Australia to see their grandchildren and to have a few months in a different country were to be treated by the immigration control in the way that the Asian community is treated in Britain.
With regard to visits, I find that on some occasions immigration officers are so intent on finding discrepancies that they fail utterly to see reality.

Mr. John Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Morton: The hon. Gentleman seems to be intent on interrupting every speech made by Labour Members, but I will give way.

Mr. Carlisle: In that case, I am doubly grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He mentioned Australia. Will he inform the House how many immigrants of skin other than white have gone to that country over the past 50 years?

Mr. Morton: I do not have that information at my fingertips and I do not think that it is relevant.
My next case relates to an elderly gentleman who arrived at Heathrow early last summer. He was deeply devoted to Britain and the British people with whom he had worked in Indian Government service. He wanted to visit his son who lived in Manchester and, on his way home, to visit Mecca for Haj. I shall not deal now with the difficulties of getting Saudi Arabian visas. The official line of the Saudi Arabian embassy is not the line that is adopted.
Because this gentleman had no visa for Saudi Arabia and it was some time before Haj, it was thought that he was likely to want to stay in the United Kingdom. He was refused entry but was given temporary admission. During that period he had a mild heart attack and was unable to travel for a couple of months—in fact, until the time at which he could make the visit for Haj.
He managed to get a visa and a flight to Jeddah and went. He told the Home Office that he was going and the flight that he was travelling on. However, even when he had gone immigration officials were still pursuing his son in Manchester to find out where his father was and why he had not left. They insisted that he had intended to stay. They were so sure that he was intending to stay that they could not accept that he had already left. His lifelong affection for Britain and its people was shattered by that experience.
The Government have proved that they can reduce the number of immigrants. I hope that we can now look to the Government to consider the justice of what they are doing and the damage to family life that arises from their activities. I hope that we shall not only see some result in terms of attitude but some changes to the Immigration Rules.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Morton) in his constituency cases, although at least one of them raises a point to which I should like to return later.
I agree that the debate is not about whether immigration rules are needed. At one moment the hon. Gentleman suggested that it might be about the rules that we have. I do not read the motion on the Order Paper in that context. I start from the position that all hon. Members agree that we must have immigration rules—every country has them—and that the debate is not meant to be about what the rules that we have provided.
It may well be that we are not debating changes in the Immigration Rules because the Opposition could not—or perhaps it is rather more likely that they dare not—come out openly with the changes that they would like. We are debating how the rules are applied.

Mr. John Sever: If the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to look through the Committee debates about 18 months ago when the House discussed the British Nationality Bill, he will find clearly set out the Opposition's views on how they propose to amend the regulations when they are in office.

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman may well be right, but we are all familiar with the rapidly changing nature of the Opposition's views and the difficulty that they sometimes have in agreeing for any length of time—or, indeed, at all—on what they should be. However, according to the Order Paper the subject of our debate is how to apply the rules. It is an interesting time to hold such a debate, because at this time of year more sport is shown on our television screens than at any other time. However, not many hon. Members have time to watch it. Similar problems are likely to occur during sporting encounters—whether they are caused by the comments by Mr. McEnroe and others on the quality of a line call at Wimbledon, or whether they have arisen during a football match.
I suspect that I am the only hon. Member to have a constituency that includes not only a first-class county cricket ground but a first division football ground.

Mr. John Major: Lancashire has a first-class county cricket ground and Manchester United is also in the first division.

Mr. Sainsbury: When I go to the Goldstone ground to watch Brighton and Hove Albion play it occurs to me that I might not be the only person occasionally to doubt the clarity of the ref's decision. However, both then and now I must remember that the referee not only has much more experience of detecting misdemeanours on the football pitch, but is much nearer the action than I am. That also applies to some of the immigration cases that we hear about. Sometimes people come to me with heart-rending stories and it is hard to understand why they have had problems, have been asked to leave, have been refused an extension or been denied admission. However, there are usually two sides to the story, and one must listen carefully to both sides.
I am not saying that mistakes are never made. No one would suggest that referees never make mistakes. Unfortunately, the television's ability to replay action from different angles sometimes allows us to see that


mistakes have been made. When there are so many cases to be considered, mistakes and misjudgments will occasionally, and inevitably, occur. Nevertheless, we should not fall into the trap of thinking that we have necessarily heard the full story when we hear a heartrending case.
To return to the sporting analogy, Opposition Members are a little like some of those who attend football matches and who express the view—in vivid and one might almost say forceful language—that the referee may be blind or biased, has been bribed by the other side or is generally extremely unfair. On most occasions—if not all—those comments are unjustified in Britain. I hope that hon. Members will agree that those who make such noises—which can be made in forceful and vivid language—are not contributing to tranquility on the terraces. In their way, and probably inadvertently, they may be stirring up the type of trouble that we all deplore. In the same way, the opposition may be running the risk—quite unintentionally—of damaging instead of improving community relations by moving a motion that clearly implies that the Immigration Rules are not being applied with
standards of humanity, compassion and respect for family life in a civilised community.
If the Opposition care about good community and race relations they should, instead, direct their energies towards improving community relations. Virtually all of us have that objective in common.
Perhaps an analogy can be drawn between the Immigration Rules and the problem of achieving good community relations in employment practice. If a West Indian finds that his job application has been unsuccessful he is likely to suspect that the application failed not because his qualifications were inadequate or because someone else had more relevant experience, but because of his colour. In employment, as in immigration, we have a double duty. Our first duty is to ensure that there is no predjudice or inequality in the application of the rules.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If the hon. Gentleman finishes his speech now he will just be in time for a television programme that used a hidden camera to analyse several cases. He will be somewhat surprised to find that in central London there is clear evidence of racial discrimination by reputable employers. He might take that into account when considering our attitude towards immigration. We tabled the motion because we believe that that is what the ethnic minorities wanted us to do. They are disturbed by the effect of immigration decisions on community relations.

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope, and would like to believe, that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that because there is occasionally prejudice in recruitment practices all employers are equally prejudiced. Of course, there is the odd rotten apple. However, we shall not serve the cause of good community relations well if we put abroad the suggestion that the Immigration Rules are generally applied unfairly. However, the Opposition seem to be attempting to do that and they are just as unjustified in that as they would be if they suggested that employment practice throughout the country was unfair and racially

prejudiced. If we follow that line we shall fail in our duty. Such suggestions are only likely to increase the suspicions of many of our people.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is sometimes necessary to take positive action to ensure that there is general equality of recruitment. Positive action must sometimes be taken to ensure that there are enough applications from the ethnic minorities and that they have the qualifications. That requires careful and planned activity. There are certain areas of risk. Judging from one or two cases, we must ensure that the rules are explained carefully to applicants, particularly when the applicant may not have a good grasp of English. If there is any doubt about the quality of the applicant's English—understandably some applicants may be inclined to exaggerate their grasp of English and do not let on that it is imperfect—the officer should ensure that someone is present to explain and interpret, as necessary.
On the problem of uniting families, I reject the view that is sometimes advanced, although not in this debate, that one would be right to prevent dependent children from joining their parents when those parents have been able to settle legally on the clear understanding that their children would be allowed to join them. Such an approach would be un-Christian and unjustified. I am concerned that we do not treat as fairly as we should some of the dependent parents of those who are legally settled here.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) referred to remittances and said that, if the remittances continue, the parent is held to be not in need of coming to this country. One of the cases to which the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Morton) referred was also concerned with the problem of dependent parents. Even the most stringent critics of the numbers of immigrants would not suggest that the admission of aged widowed mothers would in the long run increase the numbers of immigrants from the New Commonwealth. We must examine carefully the application of the rules to such cases. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be able to assure the House that our country will maintain its proud record of admitting political refugees. In that connection, I welcomed the decision with regard to the Vietnamese boat people.
Overall, the Opposition have not established their case. I return, perhaps for the last time, to the sporting analogy that I hope will appeal to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). The Opposition sometimes remind me of people who, in a football match between France and Cameroon, would accuse the referee of racial prejudice if he were to send off one of the Cameroon players, on the grounds that the poor man was black. That is not entirely fair because the referee could not carry out his job without, if necessary, sending off a black player. Equally, because many applicants with doubtful credentials come from the New Commonwealth or are black and therefore run into problems and because some of the cases which come up for scrutiny turn out to be from those people, one cannot therefore conclude that rules are being applied in a racially prejudiced manner.
I have the greatest confidence in my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office. I know from personal experience that whenever I have had to intervene in a case, it has been looked at with great care and sympathy. Bearing in mind the nature of my constituency, I have had a surprising number of cases. I must agree with what my


right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said when he detailed the attention, the care and the various stages through which cases in doubt can be taken.
One of the most telling points my right hon. Friend made was his reference to the number of cases of deportation under the previous Government. That seems to prove that we have a difficult problem in applying the rules but it is a problem that will be faced by any Government. I am satisfied that we are applying the rules fairly and have no hesitation in supporting the amendment and rejecting the Opposition's motion the case for which they have totally failed to establish.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Any just system of immigration control should be fair, should be seen to be fair and should operate with reasonable expedition. There is delay throughout the system, and long delay, in itself, is a serious injustice. I know that there has been delay under previous Administrations, but anyone who studies the system as it then operated or as it now operates will know that, since delay is a denial of justice, there is a denial of justice in immigration control.
Between application in countries abroad and interview at a British post abroad there is often a delay of more than a year. Sometimes, after interview, it is necessary to interview a relative in this country. There is a further long delay before that interview takes place and a further long delay after that interview before a decision is reached. If there is a refusal and one goes into the appeals system there is a further huge delay. Delays on that scale—long delays between filing an appeal and the hearing of the appeal itself and between application and final resolution of an application, sometimes of more than three years—cannot be right.
We must examine the system to discover all the points at which we can cut out cumbersome procedures. We also need more staff—whatever the expenditure constraints—in order to reduce the delay which is a major failing in the system.
Members of Parliament with problems about visitors receive every assistance from Ministers' officials. Those at the other end of the telephone are invariably courteous. However, people are having to wait long periods for the visitors they are welcoming at Heathrow. There is a feeling that visitors at Heathrow are unnecessarily refused. In the event of a refusal, officials have to decide whether to grant temporary admission—for example, when a Member of Parliament intervenes. If the officials decide to grant temporary admission it means not that they feel that the individual is likely to disappear but simply that the person may wish to stay longer than stated.
The Minister may take five or six weeks to consider the submission from a Member of Parliament on behalf of the refused visitor. He will then come to his conclusion and say "I have come to the conclusion that this person must leave." Since it is accepted that the man or woman will not disappear, why should the Minister not allow the person to stay longer? If he grants formal leave for a visit the Minister knows or fears that the person may apply for an extension or appeal and "play the system". Why does the Minister not take longer than five or six weeks to decide upon the submission since there is no harm if the person stays a little longer—for the three or four months

requested? After all, such people will not poison us. They are doing no harm and it seems unreasonable to make such visitors leave a few weeks early.
The issue of elderly parents for settlement is another example of a lack of a humanitarian attitude. A woman of 75 may have in this country four sons and perhaps daughters who are married with children. The woman may never have seen all those grandchildren. She may want to settle with her family, but if she has one married daughter who lives 100 miles away from her in Pakistan or India she is almost certain to be refused because, in the words of the rule,
She has a close relative to turn to.
There should be a liberalisation of the settlement rule for elderly parents. The position for husbands and fiancés is that if a man settled here only a year ago he can bring his bride to Britain. There is no problem. But a girl who arrived in Britain as a baby who has British citizenship by registration and speaks no language but English and has lived here all her life has no right under the existing rules 50 and 52 to bring a fiancé or husband here. It is clear that the rule about husbands and fiancés is sexually and, in effect, racially discriminatory.
On appeals, the notice of refusal is often sent to people who cannot read. If they do not appeal within 14 days their right of appeal is lost. I am referring to the refusal of an extension. If the right of appeal is lost, out the person must go. There should be some discretion to extend the period for appeal when a good reason is offered. Appeals should also be dealt with more quickly.
When elderly people wished to come here to see their children and applied for settlement but were refused they would never be allowed here for a visit. The application for settlement is on their record and they will be refused short stay.
People with relatives here should not be barred from visiting just because they have been refused permanent settlement in the past. Elderly people have no means of seeing grandchildren who live here unless the grandchildren travel abroad to see them simply because years ago they were refused permanent settlement. The officials have discretion, but in 99 cases out of 100, if a previous application for permanent settlement has been refused, the old lady or the old man is prevented from coming in as a visitor. I hope that the Minister will do something about that on humanitarian grounds.
I should have liked to raise other matters, but in view of the shortage of time and in deference to others who wish to speak I shall not do so. A civilised country cannot be proud of some of these rules and the way in which they are sometimes applied.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The wording of the motion is defective. That is surprising since those who drafted it should know better. There are no such things as immigration regulations; there are only Immigration Rules. The motion refers to the implementation of the regulations. It transpires that the objection is to the exercise of ministerial discretion which is strictly outside the rules. The Opposition appear to be in disarray.
My principal objection to the motion is that it is pure hypocrisy. The Labour Party's words do not measure up to its deeds. Labour Governments have been stricter on immigration, broadly speaking, than any Conservative Government. It is true that we were the first to introduce


any control over Commonwealth citizens in 1962, but, when the Labour Party came to power in 1964 a Labour Home Secretary, Sir Frank Soskice, tightened up the rules and reduced the quotas. Who took the decision in 1968 to restrict the right of United Kingdom passport holders to come to Britain without let or hindrance? It was a Labour Home Secretary, who was overwhelmed by the thought that the country could be flooded by East African Asians because of a technicality. As a result, the Labour Government introduced the 1968 Act which severely restricted the flow of East African immigrants, albeit that they had United Kingdom passports. That draconian action was taken by a Labour Home Secretary who, so greatly was he regarded by his party, subsequently became Prime Minister.
Although the Labour and Liberal parties promised that the 1962 Act would be repealed, it was not repealed by the Labour Government in 1964. The 1968 and 1971 Acts, unifying and codifying all immigration law, were not repealed by the Labour Government of 1974. How are we to believe the Opposition's protestation now? In Opposition, Labour Members talk glibly about opening the doors to all the deserving cases, yet in power they close the door as tightly as, if not more tightly than, we do.
According to my information, the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) was greatly criticised for her strictness in applying the Immigration Rules. I believe that the present Minister of State, an excellent Minister, is too soft over the Immigration Rules. Many of us, in a general way, would prefer the hon. Member for Halifax to be in charge of immigration.
Why is there such a difference between what the Labour Party says and what it does when it has the responsibility and power to do what it claims it will do? Why does the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) huff and puff about what will happen to the British Nationality Act, for example, when we all know that when the time comes he will behave exactly the same as his predecessors and do nothing? It is because we all know that the immigrant community is already so large and gives us so many problems of social friction and racial tension that it is not desirable to increase the size of that population. That is why we do not want to increase the number of immigrants coming in. That is why we all talk in terms of a strict control over immigration.
That is what we say when we have responsibility, but when they have no responsibility the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and his hon. Friends talk about monstrous injustices created by Conservative Ministers applying rules which they know are sensible and reasonable in view of the objective—to contain the huge problem arising out of the presence in our midst of millions of people whose origins lie elsewhere and whose absorption into the population is extremely difficult. We are all working at the problem. There are various ways of doing so. Immigration and its strict control is a policy which every sensible person accepts. The leaders of the immigrant community also accept it. They know that their prospects of acceptance and of reducing racial tension will be harmed if continuing waves of immigrants are allowed in. Some members of the Labour Party would wish to open the door again and allow many more immigrants into this country. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who appears to hold that view, need not worry. If we ever

have another Labour Government, which I doubt, he will not be invited by the powers that be to be a Home Office Minister responsible for immigration. They understand the true position. The prospect of increasing immigration is one that all sensible people reject. All sensible people opt for fair, humane but strict control over immigration. Much nonsense is talked about immigration, and this motion is especially misconceived.
I turn now to visitors to this country who are challenged as to their bona fides. It has been suggested that many more coloured people are challenged than white and that therefore our immigration policy must be racialist. Most of those who wish to settle in Britain come from tropical countries and are coloured. The Home Secretary said earlier that of the 640 people who were deported as illegal immigrants and of the 248 illegal immigrants who were permitted to stay, the vast majority were coloured.
Hence it is perfectly reasonable for immigration officers to examine a little more sceptically the bona fides of those who apply to stay in Britain as visitors for six months. Fewer Americans in proportion to the size of their population come to Britain and apply to settle compared with those from the other countries that have been mentioned. We all know that many people from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh wish to come here and share the benefits that we all enjoy. One cannot blame them for wishing to do so, but one can blame an Administration that allows them entry at the expense of good race relations.
The initial argument about foreign husbands of British wives is whether they should have the right to settle here. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) was wrong to say that they cannot enter this country. Of course they can, but they must qualify as any other immigrant. There are plenty of opportunities for them to do so. I have had applications from people coming from tropical countries and the New Commonwealth to settle here, many of which have succeeded for various permissible reasons under the Immigration Rules. Husbands of British citizens who wish to settle in this country can prove their case. The hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) shakes his head. His argument is that there should be no conditions of entry and that foreign husbands should be admitted automatically with no questions asked. That is not our immigration policy, nor should it be. There should be no open door in such cases. It is natural for a wife to join her husband in the home that he must provide for her. That is our way of life and it also happens to be the way of life of the Indian Sub-continent, but we are perfectly entitled to make a distinction and to say to a wife who happens to be British that if her husband wishes to join her here, in reverse of the normal rule, he must qualify in the normal way.
The Government are doing their best. I wish only that they were stricter on immigration control. However, the motion deserves rejection because the Labour Party is a fraudulent party when discussing this subject.

Mr. John Sever: The dilemma that the House faces today is a frequent one. The Opposition have put to the Government a reasoned proposition that requires an answer. The Home Secretary, in line with ministerial practice, arrived at the House with a carefully prepared text that was doubtless drawn up for


him in the light of his policies so that he could advise the House about the Government's view on the Immigration Rules and the amendments proposed to them.
The problem is that the Opposition's arguments went largely unanswered. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) outlined three matters about which the Opposition are anxious. They are the implementation and method of controlling immigration into the United Kingdom that centres on the rights of British women to have their husbands with them here; the dependent relatives, both elderly and young, who wish to join their families here; and visitors who wish to see their families and friends. The Minister seems to be jumping about already.

Mr. Raison: I am jumping about merely because I wish to say that part of the problem is that the wording of the Opposition's motion implied that this was to be a debate not about what the rules should be but about the operation and implementation of the rules. We have been rather confused as to what the Opposition wish to discuss.

Mr. Sever: I am sorry that the Minister is confused, but it seems to be the normal state in which he operates. What my right hon. Friend said was clear and it should be simple enough for the Minister to reply to the questions that were put to him.
We should consider the difficulties that many ethnic minority leaders discuss with Labour Members. Conservative Members say that they have had representations from community leaders calling for a strong view to be taken on whether the rules should be implemented so as to control illegal immigration.
I was priviledged yesterday to attend the wedding of a close friend in the Guru Ravidass temple in my constituency. Community leaders told me that I should try to point out to the House the difficulties experienced by some of those who were intimately involved with the wedding arrangements. The groom's family were anxious that some relatives should be with them on such a happy and important occasion. The Immigration Rules operate in such a way that two relatives who sought entry to the United Kingdom for a limited period to attend the wedding were allowed to do so. For a change, that is a good luck story. Often I make representations to the Home Office about people being detained when they have entered the United Kingdom with the sole intention of attending a marriage, funeral or other religious event. They are frustrated from doing so because of the harsh implementation of the regulations.
Yesterday we were fortunate. The relatives were able to attend their nephew's wedding and everything was successful. However, to ensure that the visitors were looked after properly, two of my constituents had to travel to Heathrow on Thursday, one to drive the car and the other to help if there were any difficulties with interpretation or with the request for leave to remain in the United Kingdom for the visit. Two people lost time from work—one with considerable difficulty. It happens thousands of times every year. We hear about many cases at Heathrow where relatives and friends must take time off from work and lose money and suffer inconvenience in trying to help desperately worried people who wish to enter the United Kingdom for genuine reasons.
That is the argument that my right hon. Friend tried to put to the Home Secretary this afternoon. Many of my

right hon. and hon. Friends have tried today to impress upon the Government how difficult it is for people with valid reasons to enter the United Kingdom. That is because the Government have erected so many hurdles for them to leap over to get into this country. It is the Government's responsibility to reconsider carefully the way in which the regulations operate and the effect that they have on community life for many of our citizens.
Reference has been made to the appeals system. The Government should look carefully at the way in which appeals are dealt with. I believe that if someone has what he considers to be a reasoned and valid case for arguing with the authorities about the interpretation of the immigration regulations, he should be allowed to appeal in the United Kingdom—not when he has been dispatched post haste to India or Bangladesh, but while he is here—and put forward a reasoned and rational argument for staying here. The Government could do themselves a service by accepting in principle that if someone has a case to argue, he should be allowed to go through the appeals system while still in the United Kingdom.
One of the harshest areas of interpretation in the Immigration Rules concerns elderly dependent relatives who seek to visit their relatives in the United Kingdom. The dilemma has been outlined by one or two hon. Members. Elderly people who, several years ago, may have made an application to join their families for permanent settlement, might have to come to the United Kingdom for a serious domestic purpose, such as the death of a close relative, or a happier one, such as the marriage of grandchildren, whom they wish to see for the first time. Sometimes marriages take place in the United Kingdom of people born here, whose grandparents, in India, for example, have never seen them. When the young people get married, the elderly dependent relatives reasonably want to be there to celebrate a major occasion in the life of their family.
The grandparents find that when they try to come to the United Kingdom they are disallowed because someone somewhere has dug out a file that says that in 1975 they applied to come here permanrntly. They did that because their families and children were settled here, probably making a reasonable living in a settled and sensible fashion. They were trying to reunite the family, but the application was turned down. Now the grandparents want to come to this country for a wedding or another occasion, but they cannot get in. That is harsh and unreasonable. It militates against the maintenance of sound family life for many people.
Such an occurrence happens not now and again, but daily, to my constituents. As the Minister knows, the forbearance of his staff at the Home Office is such that they can deal with many of my inquiries with good will and grace. However, we should not have to do that. I hope that the Minister will take this point on board. We should not have to try to convince Minsters and ministerial staff of the validity of the arguments of some people who want to enter the United Kingdom for legitimate short-term visits.
The Government now have the opportunity to explain to the House why they cannot improve the situation. Such an improvement would benefit all of us. Community leaders, such as those to whom I spoke yesterday at the wedding that I attended, are concerned about making sure that the regulations keep out undesirables—which is fair and reasonable—but they ask why it is so difficult for


genuine visitors to enter the United Kingdom for legitimate purposes. That is a reasonable question, however one throws the dice. The Minister should come up with some reasonable answers.

Mr. Tim Eggar: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) argued as a constituency Member. I am sure that if he referred to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), he would be told that it is easy to theorise and make the right noises in Opposition, but that when the reality of Government hits hon. Members, it is necessary to take some harsh decisions. If they are not prepared to do so, they get their just deserts.
It has been common ground that Britain, like every other country, has a right to control its immigration. No one, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) has questioned that.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The hon. Gentleman should be careful what he says. I oppose Britain refusing admittance to the maximum. We refuse admission to our nationals. Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of any other country that operates a similar policy?

Mr. Eggar: Because of its history, Britain is unique in having so many different forms of citizenship. We have been willing to put people into different categories while giving them a British passport—with qualifications—in a way that no other country has been prepared to do. We regard the issue from a different perspective.
Having been a Member of Parliament for some three years I have noticed the care, equity and personal attention that we give to each immigration case. That is a considerable tribute, not only to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State but to the House and the way in which the country operates. I doubt whether any other country affords that level of personal attention from Ministers, senior civil servants and Members of Parliament.
Many hon. Members have given examples of specific problems that they have encountered with regard to the Immigration Rules. I shall give three examples of my own. The first relates to male fiancés. I do not often find myself agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) on immigration matters, but I agree with his reasonable argument that there is no justification for a female who has the right of abode in the United Kingdom being denied the right to bring in her fiancé. There is no inherent justification for that.
Perhaps like other hon. Members I am influenced by cases that have come to my attention. Before I came here I remember vividly trying to help an Asian family that lived in the same street as me. Its eldest daughter had been married by arrangement in Britain to a man who came from the same area as her family in the Indian Subcontinent. The man arrived, the necessary financial arrangements were made—the traditional system whereby the dowry comes from the fiancée was in this case reversed—and the ceremony was carried out in accordance with law and custom. Within three months, the man, having enjoyed the rights of marriage, abandoned the girl and disappeared to work in the North of England. He made it quite clear through his relatives who remained in India that he would not return as a husband.
Hon. Members have extrapolated from particular cases, but the great distress, horror and feeling of being a social outcast that the girl experienced will always be in my mind. Not every case of a fiancé is genuine and the same applies to temporary admissions.
Difficulties with temporary admissions have been quoted. My constituency has a significant immigrant population. Three, four or five times a year I contact my right hon. Friend's private office for help. It was no surprise to me to find that of the 6· million visitors a year only 13,000 are refused entry.
In response to an intervention from me the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that he was dealing with the Indian Sub-continent. Only 0·75 per cent. of visitors from India and Pakistan are refused entry. That is a small percentage.
I cannot understand the tremendous feeling manifested by the Opposition. The cases that I have dealt with have been handled quickly and sympathetically. Many of the cases were good and temporary admission was permitted.
I have in my constituency many Cypriots who came here completely destitute after the Turkish invasion in 1974. They have founded small businesses, bought homes and contribute massively to the north London economy. Previously they had to renew their permission to stay every six months or a year. They wanted guidance about whether the Home Office might one day say that the situation in Cyprus had improved and they must return. They had been here seven years and wished to make decisions on expanding their business or buying a house. Following representations from hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), my right hon. Friend was able to make the important concession for Cypriot refugees. It is greatly welcomed in the Cypriot community.
But even from that community a constituent recently explained that he had not renewed his temporary permit for a number of years and asked me to help. He had proof that he was a refugee. I told him that had he acted properly he would have the right of permanent entry and be able to stay for as long as he wanted. I told him that it was unreasonable to ask me to take his case up with the Home Office when he had consciously evaded immigration controls, for whatever reason. I have yet to hear whether that gentleman wants me to make representations to the Home Office. He is worried that the Home Office may say "You had your chance. You have deliberately flouted the rules and you must take the consequences." A number of hon. Members have said that the implementation of the rules are a matter of judgment.

Mr. Kaufman: Is a matter of judgment.

Mr. Eggar: Is a matter of judgment. I always bow to the right hon. Gentleman, although I wonder whether I should, having seen the precise wording of the Opposition motion.
There are extremely difficult decisions to be taken and different factors to be weighed up. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State would not say that he was right in every case. On balance, I believe that he and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary exercise humane judgment and in the vast majority of cases come to the right decision. That is what matters.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I found some of the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) extraordinary. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) was upbraided for rehearsing his constituency experiences, yet the hon. Member for Enfield, North did that himself. I found even more astonishing the suggestion made by him and other hon. Members on the Government Benches that somehow or other they have the right to sit in judgment to determine issues that more properly should go to the Minister. I do not accept that criterion for dealing with cases. No hon. Member has sufficient time to investigate all these matters in depth. Many of the cases, particularly where there are language difficulties, require an inordinate amount of preparation to ensure that every reasonable point is put to the Minister.
I want to mention one other general point. My experience and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood and many other hon. Members is that the application of the rules does not reach the state of near perfection that the hon. Member for Enfield, North suggested. It is replete with injustice and occasions where people are denied their rights unless they go to some agency, a Member of Parliament, or somebody who is familiar with the Immigration Rules. We touch only the tip of the iceberg. How many cases which might be successful if representations were made do not come to notice because people are not aware of their rights? There is no way of knowing.
Another matter that has not been discussed at any length relates to the criteria applied by the Minister in dealing with refugees from political persecution. There are many inconsistencies in the way in which the Minister performs his duties. Some extraordinary decisions are made. There is an inordinate delay in dealing with applications by people seeking asylum. The Minister does not pay sufficient attention to the serious disadvantages suffered by such people that are compounded by such delays. They cannot work. They do not qualify for social security benefits and they may be prejudiced educationally.
On a significant number of occasions the Government fail to appreciate the serious political situations in certain countries and they are too rigid in their adherence to the somewhat vague criteria that they have set for themselves.
Let me rehearse one or two cases that have come to my attention. A Polish girl of considerable distinction and educational attainment—she was trained as a judge—was unable to bear the regime in Poland. She came here, got a fairly menial job and wanted to stay. The disturbances arose in Poland, but the Minister of State was prepared to say that she should go home. Her family had a record of opposition to the regime. I am told that some had been punished, and the Minister of State was unable to dispute that.
Presumably the Home Office was advised by the Foreign Office, but it was as if they had never heard of Solidarity and the events in Poland. The Government are prepared to denounce tyranny in general terms, but evidently ordinary people seeking asylum are subjected to different criteria from famous ballerinas or sportsmen. That Polish girl married a British subject. It was a genuine marriage and the case ended there. What would have happened if she had not married a British subject? Would she have been sent back?
I know of a woman from Afghanistan who had a housekeeper's job in a home in this country. Despite the outbreak of civil war in Afghanistan, I was informed by the Minister of State that the Foreign Office was satisfied that the woman could be sent back. What sort of advice do the Ministers get? Who gives it to them?
Iranians who come to this country are often given invaluable help by the immigration authorities, but there are tremendous inconsistencies. An Iranian girl, who was trained here as an architect, had become used to our way of life, which could not be more different from that in present day Iran with its Muslim fundamentalist approach towards women, was told that she would have to go back to Iran. She has married a British subject and I believe it to be a genuine marriage. If she had not married that British subject, would she have been compelled to go back? What consistency can the Minister relate to the way in which he deals with such cases?
People from South Africa may not always be able to prove that they would be persecuted if they were sent back, but they may find the South African regime deeply offensive. Such cases do not fit exactly into the concept of political asylum, but is it right to send people back to a way of life that they abhor? That does happen.
I am involved in many immigration cases and I have nothing but enormous help from members of the Minister of State's private office. I pay tribute to them. They go out of their way at holiday times, at weekends and late at night to deal with emergency cases. That ought to be known. I only wish that it reflected the general way in which the Government operated their immigration policy.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: For anyone who truly cares about Britain's reputation as a civilised society, today has been a saddening occasion. As each of my hon. Friends, together with the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) in a courageous speech, and other hon. Members, has added to the harrowing catalogue of human misery caused by the Immigration Rules and the way in which they are being operated, the House might well have asked:
What, will the line stretch out to th' crack of doom?
The sad fact is that all the Government have been doing, and what the Secretary of State has been doing, with the connivance of his hit man the Minister of State, is to make the crack of doom heard in thousands of homes here and in other countries where modest hopes and innocent dreams have been destroyed by the Government's determination to reduce, by however few, the number of coloured faces, brown and black, seen on our streets.
What lies behind the Government's action is not immigration as such, but coloured immigration. It is race. It was all summed up in that television interview with the Prime Minister to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) referred. That interview has never been forgotten among the minority communities in this country. In that interview the right hon. Lady sand:
People are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture.
Taking that statement as its cue, the Conservative Party went on to devise a policy to stop this swamping, with the Home Secretary as its principal architect. He set out the guidelines in his notorious Leicester speech. When he finally made his statement in the House on 14 November 1979—mark that date because it becomes highly relevant


to my argument—the numbers by which this fearful swamping were to be reduced had shrunk to 3,000–4,000 a year. That is a small figure in the context of total immigration. It became even smaller when the Home Secretary presented his revised proposals three months later, but still a figure large enough to cause much avoidable human misery.
What was announced as policy at the top has become practice further down the line. Repeatedly, there seems to be a presumption at the airports and seaports that anyone from the Indian Sub-continent in particular who presents him or herself for entry into this country must be up to no good. Immigration officers seem unable to grasp the fact that people seeking to enter as visitors actually intend to leave at the end of their period of admission. The presumption is that they intend to enter and then to vanish mysteriously, possibly up a rope, immediately becoming untraceable because of the impenetrability of their oriental features. Therefore, interviews have become more and more searching, undignified, and offensive, as described in a document submitted six months ago to the Race Relations Immigration Sub-Committee of the Home Affairs Committee by the United Kingdom Immigrant Advisory Service. It stated:
UKIAS strongly feels that persons from the Indian subcontinent are being treated unfairly both by the ECOs abroad as well as by the Immigration Officers at the ports of entry. Overwhelming evidence is a matter of record to show that strenuous search for discrepancies has become almost an obsession. Documents both statutory and private which prima facie speak for themselves are ignored and generalised as easily procurable and forged. Discrepancies are deemed to outweigh the documentary evidence thus tipping the balance of probability against the applicants thus delaying decisions for months or years causing great hardships.
The standard of objectivity in assessing the reality or otherwise is declining every day. Evidence is also available to show that persons from the Indian sub-continent are discriminated against simply on the basis of their origin. The administrative policy on immigration in the context of the Indian sub-continent reflects an approach that thousands of genuine persons may be allowed to suffer but one dishonest one may not be allowed to enter the United Kingdom.
The document goes on:
The problems faced by visitors from the Indian sub-continent are that British authorities abroad advise applicants that no entry clearance is required and leave to enter can be applied for at a port of entry in Britain. Technically, the advice may be correct but in practice it results in considerable financial loss as well as acute embarrassment to the persons concerned. To illustrate the point, a passenger on receiving advice arrives at a port of entry and applies for leave to enter. His country of origin is itself a handicap. His incentive to return is in doubt from the very start. He is detained and subjected to a lengthy examination and frequently by several immigration officers for several days. His sponsor, relatives and friends are examined in detail and even these relatives and friends have to satisfy the immigration officers of their own immigration status in the United Kingdom. His luggage is invariably searched to hunt for documents. His private correspondence is opened and read without his prior permission. Every effort is made to hunt for evidence and if nothing is found, then discrepancies are created by putting leading questions and repeating the same questions.
Nor is this an isolated view of what takes place. Testifying earlier this year to the Sub-Committee Mr. Ian Martin, general secretary of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, declared that
the attitude which entry clearance officers themselves bring to bear on applications is all too often one of looking for evidence to substantiate a refusal rather than to approach matters with an open mind on the balance of probabilities.

Mr. Jamal Hasan, a member of the executive committee of the JCWI, said that
the whole procedure is designed to find discrepancies.
It should be remembered that these people are not sentimental dupes. They are people with vast experience of immigration practice, well aware of the least worthy cases as well as those which arouse public attention and indignation. Not just anecdotal evidence but cold hard statistics also tell the story and bear out the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever). They tell us that a passenger from India is nearly 160 times more likely to be detained at Harmondsworth detention centre than one from the old Commonwealth.
"Only connect" was the famous watchword of E. M. Forster, author of "A Passage to India." "Only disconnect" is the watchword of the Home Office for passengers from India and Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sierre Leone and Nigeria, for the net seems to spread wider all the time. The aim is to prevent people from entering this country and to find ways of throwing them out if they actually manage to get in.
Chance has so arranged matters that several of the best known cases that most vividly illustrate the methods and attitude of the Home Office have occurred to victims in my constituency. The zeal of the Home Office in pursuing an innocent person who has inavertently infringed the immigration laws is nowhere more vividly illustrated than in the case of the Khan family about whom protests have been made all over the country. Mr. Khan, now in his early 20s, came here 10 years ago when he was 13 years old. Obviously, at that age, he did not come on his own initiative. Nor could he possibly have been sophisticated enough to be aware of the law he was infringing or the right eventually given him to regularise his position.
He was brought in illegally—that is certain—under another boy's name. But as an illegal immigrant, he was eligible for the amnesty offered by the Labour Government. Unfortunately, he was not aware either of the amnesty or of his eligibility to apply for it. Moreover, some time after he arrived, he left this country for a short time and upon being readmitted had his passport stamped for indefinite stay. He had no reason to believe that he was not in the clear with the authorities. He grew up and married a girl who came to this country from Pakistan. They have two small children both born in this country and both as British as anyone in this House.
Suddenly Mr. Khan's world fell in. The Home Office said that he was here illegally and must leave the country. He was served with a deportation notice. Incredibly, so was Mrs. Khan. She had entered Britain legally to marry him. She was unaware that he was here illegally, particularly as he was equally unaware that he was here illegally, and consequently was unable to tell her. The Minister of State told me last December that Mrs. Khan's
leave to enter as a fiancée was obtained by positive misrepresentation that her husband was settled in the United Kingdom.
The Minister said that she was guilty of "positive misrepresentation", but a month later the Home Secretary admitted to me:
We accept she did not appreciate that her husband's stay here was unlawful.
Nevertheless, the twisted logic of the Home Office convicts Mrs. Khan of deliberately withholding a relevant fact from the authorities, even though it does not deny that she did not know the fact that it says that she was


deliberately withholding. Therefore, she has to go too. Their children have the right to stay, but the humane Home Office does not want to split the family and has generously offered to pay the fares "home" of these children, even though their home is in this country, in Manchester, where they were born.
The stress of this ghastly situation proved too much for Mr. Khan. He left his wife and she now has no means of support. The Home Office say that Mr. and Mrs. Khan must leave together. Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Social Security is denying her the right to its assistance. The Home Office is saying that Mrs. Khan is a liar for not telling it something she did not know, and the DHSS is conniving by trying to starve her out of the country. That is what happens to someone who is defeated by the oppressive administration of the rules. [Interruption.] I hope that the Minister will agree that I am speaking directly to the motion, as not to do so seems to trouble him.
Whenever the Home Secretary wishes, he could solve this terrible problem by using his discretion to permit the Khans to remain. What happens to someone who wins against a Home Office vendetta? The experience of another of my constituents is a vivid example. The case of Mrs. Nasira Begum, another of my constituents, is perhaps by now one of the most famous of all cases. Mrs. Begum came here as a visitor and entered into a legal arranged marriage with Mr. Mohammed Afzal in Huddersfield. Mr. Afzal then applied for her to remain in this country as his wife.
The marriage broke down but was not ended by divorce. After three years, and, significantly, after this Government had taken office, the Home Office refused to permit her to remain, saying that she had entered into a marriage of convenience. It decided to remove her. With the aid of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) she appealed against that decision.
Meanwhile, the Home Office was changing its story. It now claimed the Mr. Afzal already had a wife and consequently his marriage to Nasira was bigamous and not valid. Accordingly, she must be booted out. How a bigamous marriage could be one of convenience for Nasira was never made clear. Nor was it ever explained to me by the Attorney-General or anyone else, although I have frequently asked, why Mr. Afzal had never been prosecuted for bigamy, which, after all, is quite a serious crime and of which, in Mr. Afzal's case, if there is a case, the authorities have been aware for several years.
Along the way, the Home Office changed the lady to whom Mr. Afzal had allegedly first been married. It began by saying that it was a lady named Firdous whom, it said, he had married in England. It then vicariously jilted poor Firdous, and claimed that he had been married to quite a different lady in Pakistan, Amina Begum.
This time the Home Office was right. He had, indeed, been married to her. He had also been legally divorced from her, in Pakistan. So the Home Office now immersed itself in the technicalities of the validity of a Pakistani Talaq divorce in Britain and insisted that an important point of law was at stake. The adjudicator did not accept its case. He found in favour of Nasira. So the Home Office appealed against the adjudicator's decision. However, the immigration appeal tribunal also found in favour of Nasira
All was now dancing and rejoicing. The Home Office endorsed Nasira's passport with an indefinite right to

remain. Nasira foolishly decided to regularise her position, and applied to register as a British citizen. The Home Secretary personally then told me that she could not do so, because her right to register depended on her marriage to Mr. Afzal, and the right hon. Gentleman did not accept that Nasira was validly married to Mr. Afzal, even though the adjudicator did, even though the immigration appeal tribunal did, and even though Mr. Afzal himself did, as he has been trying to divorce her.
The Secretary of State said to me in a letter:
I am afraid that our consideration of the case has led us to conclude that we do not accept the Tribunal's determination (which does not provide an authoritative precedent for the Courts)"—
I bet it would have if the Home Office had won—
as conclusive on the question of the validity in English law of her marriage to Mohammed Afzal. As her entitlement to registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies depends on the validity of the marriage, and as it remains our view that the marriage would not be regarded as valid in our law, we are not prepared to accept her application.
The pursuit of Orestes by the Furies was a game of lag compared with the way that the Home Office has hounded Nasira. It is staggering to contemplate the ingenuity, doggedness and the amount of taxpayers' money that have been expended for the purpose of harrying one harmless woman, whose continued presence in Manchester, I assure the Prime Minister, has not resulted in the swamping of our culture. Even although Nasira is still among us in Manchester, the Hallé orchestra continues to play Elgar. This week, the Royal Exchange theatre in Manchester is opening a musical about Andy Capp, a character whose sexism must surely have a strong appeal to the Home Secretary. Perhaps he will organise charabanc trips to go and see it. Understandably, women's organisations have been particularly indignant about the treatment of the Khans and Nasira Begum.
A case that is less well known than theirs is even more symbolic of the aspect of the Immigration Rules that especially angers those who accuse the Home Office not only of racial discrimination but of sexual discrimination. Of all the provisions in the revised Immigration Rules that came into force on 1 March 1980, as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood so forcefully illustrated, the worst is the banning of the entry of husbands and male fiancés unless the girl they have married or wish to marry was born in this country or had a parent born in this country.
The sexually discriminatory aspect is, of course, that men have an absolute right to bring in their wives or fiancés. So a brother can have the wife of his choice, while his sister cannot have the husband of her choice. That is bad enough, although I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not decide to strike an unjust balance in the way that was forecast by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South, by reducing the present rights of men.
There is a particularly nasty twist to this tale. As in other new restrictions imposed by the Immigration Rules, there is a retrospective element. On 14 November 1979 the Home Secretary announced that the Immigration Rules were to be changed. He did not say when that change would come because at that time he did not know. What he did say was that from that day onward he would treat all new applications as having been submitted under the new rules, even though he did not know what those rules would be, even though he did not know when those rules would be laid, and even though those rules would not be law until he laid them. Therefore, he was saying that


applications that were lawful when made would be judged not by the law as it existed but by the law as it would be when he decided what it would be and when it would be.
In his speech this afternoon the Secretary of State spoke magniloquently about the acceptability for entry into Britain of those who "make genuine applications within the rules". I made a point of intervening to obtain confirmation of those words. The Home Secretary duly provided that confirmation. Yet he is denying fair treatment to those very people who, as he put it in the House today, "make genuine applications within the rules". He is denying that fair treatment by retrospective legislation.
On 14 November 1979 I warned the Home Secretary about the unjust nature of the retrospective action that he was planning to take. To be fair, I do not think that he was actually planning to take it, because I am charitable enough to believe that he did not have the faintest idea of the implications of the brief that he had been given to read out. However, the result is monstrous injustice.
Over the weekend I have discussed the matter with a family in my constituency who are victims of such an injustice. Sajdia Begum Ali, a girl in my constituency, wishes to marry Mohammad Saleem, who lives in Pakistan. Her father, Inayit Ali, signed the necessary statutory declaration on 29 October 1979, 16 days before the Home Secretary made his statement on the new Immigration Rules in the House. Because of family illness, Mr. Saleem was unable to make his formal application to the embassy in Islamabad until 26 November 1979. He had no idea that he was making it a wicked 12 days after the Home Secretary's statement.
Mr. Saleem was eventually interviewed in January this year, having been allowed to wait in hope for two years and two months and his application was rejected. The entry clearance officer in Islamabad specifically said last month in an explanatory statement to the immigration appeals office:
Since this application was one of the first to be considered under the revised rules I was conscious of the fact that the date of application was of prime importance.
So it was. Because Mr. Saleem made his formal application 12 days too late his life, and that of Sajdia Begum Ali, are being wrecked.
Miss Ali is also being punished for being one year and eight months too old. She was brought to Britain at the age of one year and seven months. If only she had been born here, Mr. Saleem would have been allowed to come here to marry her. It is over such trifles and accidents that the Home Office is exercising its repressive tyranny and casting a blight over young and hopeful lives.
Let it be clear that on this and on an increasing number of other cases, this tyranny is not being accepted. Last month, several women who are victims of the immigration Rules debarring husbands and fiancés went to Strasbourg to put their cases to the European Commission of Human Rights. In an act of extraordinary cynicism the Home Office, right there in Strasbourg, suddenly told one of the women that after a long struggle she had won her case. Of those present, she was the woman with the strongest case.
Clearly the Home Office hoped that that concession would undermine the cases of the others. It was a forlorn hope. The European Commission found that the British Government had a case to answer and is now seeking a

voluntary change in the rule about husbands and male fiancés. If that fails, the matter will eventually go to the full European Court of Human Rights, which would have the power to force the Government to change the rule. If my constituent, Mr. Ali, fails in his appeal, he, too, will go to the European Court of Human Rights; so will others.
The Home Office is now on the defensive and we will take every possible action to force it to abandon its heartless administration of discriminatory rules. If it will not do so, the next Labour Government are pledged to make those changes. On humanising immigration regulations and procedures depends the future not only of individual lives, but of harmonious race relations in Britain.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): I did not think that I would begin by saying, except on personal grounds, that I was sorry that the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) had been removed from his post as Opposition spokesman. However, having heard the speech made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), I say that without hesitation. The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central made a passionate speech. He believed in what he was saying and his case was reasonably argued. However, the right hon. Member for Ardwick produced as over-egged a pudding as the House has ever heard. His speech was absurd. He did not give me notice of the cases that he raised, so I shall not comment in detail on them.
In the case of Nasira Begum there was, and remains, an important issue of law about the nature of marriage. It has not been resolved. The tribunal expressed a view, but we cannot necessarily accept it when determining the law. Of course we accepted that she could remain in Britain. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the case of Shaukat Ali Khan. The case was based on illegal entry. My right hon. Friend and I considered the case for some time with the greatest care. However, Mr. Khan has disappeared. That is no basis on which to determine the case and the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should do all that they can to persuade Mr. Shaukat Ali Khan to abide by the laws of this country.
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) seemed to argue that we make up our own rules about refugee status as we go along. However, paragraph 16 of the Immigration Rules states:
Where a person is a refugee full account is to be taken of the provisions of the Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.
Refugee applications are difficult, but we meticulously observe our obligations and give the greatest care and attention to such cases. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that we were sending people back to Poland, but that is certainly not so.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Nevertheless, that was the conclusion in that case. If the girl had not married, she would have been returned to Poland. That was the Minister's rationale. The marriage was an extraneous matter and had nothing to do with the principle that I was discussing.

Mr. Raison: In the prevailing circumstances, we are not returning people to Poland.

Mr. David Ennals: rose—

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Raison: I shall not give way as there is much ground to cover.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have implied, the speech made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) threw us into doubt as to what his motion involved. Was it about the rules or about the operation and implementation of the rules, as the wording implies? My right hon. Friend has replied to some of the right hon. Gentleman's points. The bulk of my remarks will relate to the operation of the rules and the points that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and other hon. Members discussed the rules governing husbands and fiancés. I am sorry that I must disappoint the House, but I do not believe that this is the occasion for me to outline the changes that we might or might not make when the British Nationality Act comes into effect. There will be changes in the Immigration Rules. We shall need new Immigration Rules for technical reasons, if for no other reason. We shall put to the House whether we should go beyond the technical requirements, but I am not in a position to do that this evening.
The working of the immigration system as a whole is not just a matter of the law and the rules, basic and fundamental though they are. It has to do with thousands of cases every year. An enormous volume of casework is done by immigration officers at home, entry clearance officers overseas and the staff of our Home Office immigration and nationality department, not to mention their counterparts at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. All the work is done with admirable conscientiousness. Only a proportion of the cases reach Ministers—my right hon. Friend the relevant Foreign Office Minister or myself—but that proportion is still substantial.
I am told that last year my right hon. Friend and I dealt with about 10,500 letters from hon. Members about immigration and nationality cases. Some of the letters were about small matters. Many were to do with holiday visits—one of the themes which cropped up in the debate. A substantial number were of great importance to the lives of the people concerned. I fully understand that.
We have created a remarkable system. The decisions involved are considered and reconsidered in a way which is not matched in any comparable sphere where a judicial or quasi-judicial system operates. By and large, when an appeal tribunal operates, and certainly when the courts are involved, that is the end of the line. With immigration cases, the decisions of the adjudicators and the tribunal may be a prelude to a prolonged series of appeals by hon. Members to Ministers.
It is right that the strict operation of the rules should be tempered by discretion on compassionate grounds, although the adjudicators are able also to take these into account or to make recommendations for the exercise of discretion even when they rule against an applicant. However, discretion has to be applied with care. If it is used without regard to the rules, it will undermine the rules and substantially affect the immigration control approved by Parliament.
Again, we are dealing not with a handful of exceptional cases put to Ministers, but with thousands of cases. We cannot look at cases solely in terms of what will benefit the individual. If one accepts that there should be immigration control, one has to accept that the individual's

desires cannot be overriding. Yet none of that means that the system has to be inhumane or grossly insensitive. Nor is it.
It is arrant nonsense to say, as the Opposition motion does, that the system is being enforced in an "increasingly repressive" way. No-one listening to today's argument and who has sat through the debate could support the motion that the system is being enforced in that way. The Opposition have not made out their case.
The motion says that we should show "respect for family life". That is right, but let us examine the facts. It is sometimes forgotten what the commitment to admit the wives and children of immigrants—a commitment honoured by both parties—has meant in practice. Over the past 10 years the United Kingdom has accepted more than 350,000 wives and children for settlement. Three-quarters of all the wives and children accepted were from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan. They were, to use the language of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, "blacks" against whom it is said we discriminate the whole time. There is also the commitment to our passport holders in East Africa. Under the special voucher scheme we have accepted a total of over 140,000 people from there. Those figures illustrate Britain's recognition of our special obligation. The Government have in no way departed from those commitments.
That is the background. But of course, we are today talking about individual cases. No one would be less keen than Ito give the impression that it is always easy to reach a correct decision on some of the cases that flow from the migration. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged that. I accept that real difficulties can arise in the case of visitors, who may be elderly, who wish to visit relatives here. It would seem heartless to refuse someone entry for a family visit, but accepting someone for a visit is a different matter from accepting that person for settlement if he is well established in his home country and has other relatives to turn to there. The difficulty is whether one believes that the person is genuinely coming just for a visit. Beyond all doubt, an appreciable number of people have used the visitor route as a pathway to permanent residence here. Often they seek residence with their families here. We cannot ignore that fact, nor can the immigration service.
Another category of cases with which we must deal in the Home Office are overstayers. Hon. Members often write to me about those cases as well as about visitor cases, but all too often the burden of their case is, "We accept that this person came here as a visitor and overstayed, but would you now apply compassionate discretion?" That is clear evidence that there is a problem about the admission of visitors where there is an intention to stay. As the House knows well, where a visitor is refused entry, he has full recourse to an appeal to Ministers. The picture that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook painted of two days in detention followed by enforced departure is far from the pattern with which so many hon. Members are familiar. It cannot be denied that under the law visitors can be sent back immediately, but the liberal operation of the system of Members' representations on behalf of visitors, which is well established and not something of which only a few cognoscenti know, has the effect that many visitors, although technically refused, have the chance to spend a week or two with their families in this country. We try to examine the cases with great care and attention.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook might have examined the statistics that were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar). Only 0·6 per cent. of arrivals from India, 1·02 per cent. of arrivals from Pakistan and 0·7 per cent. of arrivals from Bangladesh are refused. Those figures are small compared with the lurid picture that has been painted this evening about what happens to visitors.

Mr. Sever: Are those figures as small as the number of people who disappear after being given temporary admission?

Mr. Raison: I shall deal with temporary admission and what I have been doing in that area shortly. The hon. Gentleman well knows that there is a world of difference between the person who comes in as a visitor and evades immigration control or who gets through without difficulty, and someone who is questioned by immigration service and is put on temporary admission. The latter has the spotlight put on him, sponsors must look after him and he must have an address to which to report. Obviously, the likelihood of a person on temporary admission going to ground is exceptionally small.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents are grateful to him for the trouble to which he goes to enable their friends and relatives to spend a week or a month here and that not one of them has yet let him down?

Mr. Raison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and also to hon. Members who, during the debate, have said kind words about the way in which my right hon. Friend and I try to operate the system.
Not even the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook went down the line taken by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt), who asked that all visitors should be admitted for six months. That would mean a massive switch from our emphasis on control at the ports to much tighter internal follow-up control over visitors after the six months. Although at times there are difficulties at the ports, it is still a better principle to have tight control there and to avoid the need for an excessive proliferation of internal follow-up.
Applications by dependents are another example of the type of case raised by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that present difficulties. The House will bear with me if I expand on the difficulties briefly. The entry clearance officer must establish whether applicants are related to the people in this country to whom they say they are related. In many cases the relatives live in the Indian Sub-continent in a rural community. They may be unable to read or write. Often there will be no documents establishing the relationship, or—what causes far more problems—the relatives may have been advised by agents to obtain bogus documents. Documents may have been obtained through misrepresentation, which then conflict with other documents submitted in support of the application. Many cases in Bangladesh are further complicated because the sponsor in Britain has claimed tax relief to which he was not entitled for non-existent wives and children. The entry clearance officer must weigh up the case, often against a background of some deception, and try to establish where the truth lies.
I accept that those are difficult decisions, but I wish to emphasise the role of the appeals system. If a person considers that the wrong decision has been made, he has the right to appeal to an independent body. That is very important and, as we know, the entry clearance officer's decision is not the last word. The adjudicators and the immigration appeal tribunal will take evidence carefully.

Mr. Bidwell: There are some cases before the European Commission of Human Rights. I appreciate that the changes to the British Nationality Act may be affected by those cases because other European countries are giving equality to spouses. Are the adjudicators, through the appeals machinery, holding fire on determining the cases because of the prospect that the Commission will rule against Britain?

Mr. Raison: The adjudicators are not holding fire in that way, but some cases may be delayed in the pipeline.
My right hon. Friend gave examples in his speech of the care that we have shown over such difficult matters as the Filipinos and the picking up of illegal entrants and overstayers. I shall draw attention to one or two other examples of steps that we have taken that show our concern to operate matters correctly and that cannot be described as part of a repressive policy.
In 1978, the previous Government decided to tighten the policy on residents returning to Britain after two years by insisting on the requirement that they should have been ordinarily resident here when they left. The change of policy raised extremely difficult questions of interpretation and caused considerable anxiety and resentment among returning residents, who knew nothing of the change in policy until their arrival at the ports. When the problems became plain to us, we carried out a thorough review of the policy and I announced last December that we had decided to drop the requirement, which was of little practical benefit to the immigration control. The change that we have made has saved much unnecessary work in the immigration department; but, more important than that, it has removed a considerable and needless source of aggravation for people returning to this country after a stay abroad.
The second example concerns Cyprus, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North spoke. For some time, I have been concerned about the position of those Cypriots who came to this country as a result of the events in Cyprus in 1974 and who have been allowed to remain from year to year under our concessionary policy, but on the understanding that they must eventually return to their home country. The difficulties faced by these people were represented to me by members of the Cypriot community here and hon. Members, and I decided to carry out a full review of the policy. The conclusion we reached was that after eight years of annual extensions, one could not expect that people, some with children, who had spent the whole of their school life here, should continue in a state of perpetual uncertainty, which my hon. Friend described. I therefore announced in May that we had decided to grant permanent residence here to all those Cypriots who had been displaced and remained here under the concessions. I thought that the right hon. Member for Ardwick would refer to that.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the period of more than five years that those Cypriots have spent here should count towards their application for nationality, should they wish to take it?

Mr. Raison: I would be prepared to consider that point. I shall write to my hon. Friend about it.
A further example of our approach to the problems arising from the need to enforce immigration control is our increased use of temporary admission as an alternative to detention. In 1979 more than 12,700 people were detained at the immigration service detention centres at Harmondsworth and Queen's Building at Heathrow. During 1980 the total number of people detained at those places had fallen to just over 10,000 and there was a further reduction to 8,485 in 1981. In 1980, about 33 per cent. of the 18,000 people who were refused leave to enter this country were granted temporary admission. The proportion of those granted temporary admission increased to just over 40 per cent. in 1981.
I stress to hon. Members who care about immigration policy and practice and about the problems of visitors that what we have done in making temporary admission more easily available has been enormously appreciated and has helped to take away some of the difficulties from those problems.
Those are just three examples of recent policy changes that we have made. I defy anyone to argue that they are part of an increasingly repressive approach.

Mr. Ennals: I wonder how the Minister will apply that argument to Iranians who are now being threatened with being sent back to Khomeini's Iran. I am thinking particularly of one constituent. Two of his brothers have already been killed and he is now being told by the Minister that he has to go back and face what might be death for him.

Mr. Raison: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have paid enormously close attention to Iranian problems and cases, which are difficult. We have spent a great deal of time in the Department looking at them. We have not been able to accept that any Iranian should automatically be immune from return. However, the facts show that we are dealing with those cases with the greatest sympathy.
I turn now to the efficiency of the system. The hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) said that justice delayed is justice denied. Under the previous Government, there were very long delays in dealing with entry clearance applications. My right hon. Friend has mentioned the reduction in the size of the queues in the Indian Sub-continent. That reduction has been matched by a fall in waiting times. At Dacca, people applying at the end of March this year expected to wait 14 months for their first interview.
That represents a dramatic improvement. In Pakistan, people expect to wait 11 months. This compares with waiting times from 1979 to 1981 of about 20 to 22 months. There is, therefore, improvement in efficiency in the subcontinent which does nothing but ease the problem. It also reflects the fact that pressure on migration from the subcontinent is falling away. That is in line with our policies.
There has also been a considerable improvement in the period that people must wait for appeals to be heard. The time taken by entry clearance officers to prepare explanatory statements for appeals against their decisions is now only about three months at all posts abroad, except

at Bombay. In other types of case, statements are now being prepared within 5½ to six months or in straightforward cases within three or four months. Again, that represents a considerable improvement. Once a statement is ready, the appeals are now being heard much more quickly.
In April last year the Home Office completed an internal review of the appeals system and published a discussion document, which has been referred to, which examined ways in which the present structure could be made to operate more efficiently while preserving a fair and reasonable system. It considered, for example, a right of appeal in Britain for illegal entrants. There has been a considerable reduction in the delays that existed when the document was first prepared, but it remains important that the system should be as efficient and fair as possible. We have received several comments on the appeals statement. Some have been less constructive than we hoped. It demonstrates our willingness to examine the way in which the system is operated and to attempt to find one that combines efficiency and effectiveness with humanity.
Looking back over the past three years at the thousands of cases for which I have been responsible, of course I could not claim to have been always right. I am prepared to acknowledge that I and the appeal system were wrong about Anwar Ditta, for example, although I was careful to make sure that if there were new evidence it would be properly considered.
There have been other equally publicised cases when our suspicions have proved entirely justified. One example is the famous case of Mrs. Patel. That case enjoyed massive television and press coverage. Events proved that our view was correct. When that happens, the news disappears from the headlines and the television screen. Equally, there is no news in the many cases in which we exercise our compassionate discretion, sometimes, I accept, after originally taking the opposite view.
There is no merit in obstinacy, only in justice. We have always been willing to examine cases again and again to ensure that we have come to the right conclusion. That sometimes gives rise to charges that we are not being firm enough. Nevertheless, the essence of the process must be to ensure that there is justice. The rules must be observed in a way that is in keeping with the compassionate traditions of Britain.
Whatever anyone may say about me or my colleagues, I have no doubt that my officials are not only painstaking to a degree but imbued with a real sense of justice and understanding. The way in which we and successive Governments deal with immigration cases is quite different from anything else of its kind. It is exhaustive. The system of appeals is not perfect—it could be more efficient and perhaps create new rights. But to get agreement on that basis for new legislation is not easy.
In the meantime, we must do all that we can to maintain control, but in a way that ensures that the individual is not crushed beneath it. The system cannot simply be geared to the good of the individuals who want to enter or live in Britain.
Under my right hon. Friend we have operated the system in a way that is clearly seen by the vast majority of those involved to be fair and we take enormous pains. I call on the House to reject the Opposition's motion and to support our amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 279.

Division No. 245]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Adams, Allen
Ginsburg, David


Alton, David
Graham, Ted


Anderson, Donald
Grant, John (Islington C)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Haynes, Frank


Beith, A. J.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Heffer, Eric S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Homewood, William


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Hooley, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Horam, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Howells, Geraint


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Hoyle, Douglas


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Huckfield, Les


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Campbell, Ian
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
John, Brynmor


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cartwright, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Lamond, James


Cohen, Stanley
Leadbitter, Ted


Coleman, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cook, Robin F.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cowans, Harry
Litherland, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Crowther, Stan
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Cryer, Bob
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
McCartney, Hugh


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Davidson, Arthur
McElhone, Frank


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
McKelvey, William


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McMahon, Andrew


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McNally, Thomas


Deakins, Eric
McNamara, Kevin


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McTaggart, Robert


Dewar, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dixon, Donald
Magee, Bryan


Dormand, Jack
Marks, Kenneth


Douglas, Dick
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Dubs, Alfred
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Eadie, Alex
Maxton, John


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


English, Michael
Mikardo, Ian


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Evans, John (Newton)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Field, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ford, Ben
Morton, George


Forrester, John
Newens, Stanley


Foster, Derek
Ogden, Eric


Foulkes, George
O'Halloran, Michael


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
O'Neill, Martin


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Freud, Clement
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Palmer, Arthur





Park, George
Stott, Roger


Parker, John
Strang, Gavin


Parry, Robert
Straw, Jack


Pendry, Tom
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Pitt, William Henry
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Prescott, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Race, Reg
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Radice, Giles
Tilley, John


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Torney, Tom


Richardson, Jo
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wainwright, H.(Colne V)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Watkins, David


Robertson, George
Weetch, Ken


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wellbeloved, James


Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Welsh, Michael


Roper, John
White, Frank R.


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Whitehead, Phillip


Rowlands, Ted
Whitlock, William


Sandelson, Neville
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Sever, John
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Sheerman, Barry
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Short, Mrs Renée
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Winnick, David


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Woodall, Alec


Silverman, Julius
Woolmer, Kenneth


Skinner, Dennis
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Wright, Sheila


Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton E)


Soley, Clive



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stallard, A. W.
Mr. Ron Leighton and


Stoddart, David
Mr. Allen McKay.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Bulmer, Esmond


Aitken, Jonathan
Burden, Sir Frederick


Alexander, Richard
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Aspinwall, Jack
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)
Churchill, W. S.


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Banks, Robert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bendall, Vivian
Cockeram, Eric


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Cope, John


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Cormack, Patrick


Best, Keith
Corrie, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Costain, Sir Albert


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cranborne, Viscount


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Critchley, Julian


Blackburn, John
Crouch, David


Blaker, Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Body, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dover, Denshore


Boscawen, Hon Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Bowden, Andrew
Durant, Tony


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dykes, Hugh


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Bright, Graham
Eggar, Tim


Brinton, Tim
Elliott, Sir William


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Emery, Sir Peter


Brooke, Hon Peter
Eyre, Reginald


Brotherton, Michael
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Browne, John (Winchester)
Farr, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fell, Sir Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Buck, Antony
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Budgen, Nick
Fisher, Sir Nigel






Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Mates, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Forman, Nigel
Mawby, Ray


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fox, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Mayhew, Patrick


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mellor, David


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Miscampbell, Norman


Goodlad, Alastair
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Gow, Ian
Moate, Roger


Gower, Sir Raymond
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry
Montgomery, Fergus


Griffiths, E.(By St. Edm'ds)
Morgan, Geraint


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mudd, David


Hamilton, Hon A.
Murphy, Christopher


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Myles, David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neale, Gerrard


Hannam, John
Needham, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hastings, Stephen
Neubert. Michael


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Newton, Tony


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Normanton, Tom


Hawksley, Warren
Nott, Rt Hon John


Hayhoe, Barney
Onslow, Cranley


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Heddle, John
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Henderson, Barry
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hicks, Robert
Parris, Matthew


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Pawsey, James


Hooson, Tom
Percival, Sir Ian


Hordern, Peter
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Pollock, Alexander


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Porter, Barry


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Irvine, Bryant Godman
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Tim


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhodes James, Robert


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knox, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lamont, Norman
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lang, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Latham, Michael
Rossi, Hugh


Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter


Lee, John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Ian (Hayant &amp; Wloo)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Richard


Luce, Richard
Shersby, Michael


Lyell, Nicholas
Silvester, Fred


McCrindle, Robert
Sims, Roger


Macfarlane, Neil
Skeet, T. H. H.


MacGregor, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Speller, Tony


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Spence, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, David
Sproat, Iain


Major, John
Squire, Robin


Marland, Paul
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marlow, Antony
Stanley, John


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Steen, Anthony





Stevens, Martin
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Walters, Dennis


Stokes, John
Ward, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Warren, Kenneth


Tapsell, Peter
Watson, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wells, Bowen


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wheeler, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Thompson, Donald
Whitney, Raymond


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Wickenden, Keith


Thornton, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilkinson, John


Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Trippier, David
Wolfson, Mark


Trotter, Neville
Young, Sir George (Acton)


van Straubenzee, Sir W.



Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Tellers for the Noes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Anthony Beny and


Waddington, David
Mr. Carol Mather


Wakeham, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 218.

Division No. 246]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Aitken, Jonathan
Churchill, W. S.


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Ancram, Michael
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Arnold, Tom
Cockeram, Eric


Aspinwall, Jack
Cope, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Cormack, Patrick


Atkins, Robert (Prest'on N)
Corrie, John


Baker, KennethfSt.M'bone,)
Costain, Sir Albert


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Cranborne, Viscount


Banks, Robert
Crouch, David


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dorrell, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Dover, Denshore


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Best, Keith
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Durant, Tony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dykes, Hugh


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Blackburn, John
Eggar, Tim


Blaker, Peter
Elliott, Sir William


Body, Richard
Emery, Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eyre, Reginald


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bowden, Andrew
Farr, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fell, Sir Anthony


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bright, Graham
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Brinton, Tim
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brotherton, Michael
Forman, Nigel


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fox, Marcus


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Buck, Antony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Budgen, Nick
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bulmer, Esmond
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Burden, Sir Frederick
Glyn, Dr Alan


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Goodlad, Alastair


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gow, Ian


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Greenway, Harry


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)






Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Neale, Gerrard


Grist, Ian
Needham, Richard


Grylls, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Gummer, John Selwyn
Neubert, Michael


Hamilton, Hon A.
Newton, Tony


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Normanton, Tom


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nott, Rt Hon John


Hannam, John
Onslow, Cranley


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hastings, Stephen
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hawksley, Warren
Parris, Matthew


Hayhoe, Barney
Patten, John (Oxford)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Pattie, Geoffrey


Heddle, John
Pawsey, James


Henderson, Barry
Percival, Sir Ian


Hicks, Robert
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)
Pollock, Alexander


Holland, Philip(Carlton)
Porter, Barry


Hooson, Tom
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hordern, Peter
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Irvine, Bryant Godman
Renton, Tim


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rhodes James, Robert


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh


Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter


Lang, Ian
Royle, Sir Anthony


Latham, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lee, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, Richard


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Silvester, Fred


Loveridge, John
Sims, Roger


Luce, Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lyell, Nicholas
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McCrindle, Robert
Speller, Tony


Macfarlane, Neil
Spence, John


MacGregor, John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Sproat, Iain


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Squire, Robin


Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Major, John
Stanley, John


Marland, Paul
Steen, Anthony


Marlow, Antony
Stevens, Martin


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stokes, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stradling, Thomas, J.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tapsell, Peter


Mayhew, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mellor, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thompson, Donald


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)


Miscampbell, Norman
Thornton, Malcolm


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Moate, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Monro, Slr Hector
Trippier, David


Montgomery, Fergus
Trotter, Neville


Morgan, Geraint
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Viggers, Peter


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Waddington, David


Mudd, David
Wakeham, John


Murphy, Christopher
Waldegrave, Hon William


Myles, David
Walker, B. (Perth)





Walters, Dennis
Wiggin, Jerry


Ward, John
Wilkinson, John


Warren, Kenneth
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Watson, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wells, Bowen
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wells, John (Maidstone)



Wheeler, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Mr. Carol Mather and


Whitney, Raymond
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Wickenden, Keith



NOES


Abse, Leo
Foulkes, George


Adams, Allen
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Alton, David
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Anderson, Donald
Freud, Clement


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Ashton, Joe
Ginsburg, David


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Graham, Ted


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grant, John (Islington C)


Bamett, Guy (Green Wich)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bidwell, Sydney
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Haynes, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Homewood, William


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Hooley, Frank


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Horam, John


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Howells, Geraint


Campbell, Ian
Hoyle, Douglas


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Huckfield, Les


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cartwright, John
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillhead)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
John, Brynmor


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cook, Robin F.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cowans, Harry
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Lamond, James


Crowther, Stan
Leadbitter, Ted


Cryer, Bob
Leighton, Ronald


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cunningham, G.(Islington S)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Litherland, Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lyon, Alexander (Yor K)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Deakins, Eric
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Mc Elhone, Frank


Dewar, Donald
Mc Kay, Allen (Penistone)


Dixon, Donald
Mc Kelvey, William


Dormand, Jack
Mc Mahon, Andrew


Douglas, Dick
Mc Nally, Thomas


Dubs, Alfred
McNamara, Kevin


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mc Taggart, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Mc William, John


Eadie, Alex
Magee, Bryan


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Marks, Kenneth


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


English, Michael
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Evans, John (Newton)
Maxton, John


Field, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan


Flannery, Martin
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ford, Ben
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Forrester, John
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)






Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Robertson, George


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Robinson, G. (Coventry N W)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Morton, George
Roper, John


Newens, Stanley
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Ogden, Eric
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


O'Halloran, Michael
Rowlands, Ted


O'Neill, Martin
Sandelson, Neville


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Sever, John


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Sheerman, Barry


Palmer, Arthur
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Park, George
Short, Mrs Renée


Parker, John
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Parry, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Pendry, Tom
Silverman, Julius


Pitt, William Henry
Skinner, Dennis


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Prescott, John
Snape, Peter


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Soley, Clive


Race, Reg
Spearing, Nigel


Radice, Giles
Stallard, A. W.


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Stoddart, David


Richardson, Jo
Stott, Roger


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strang, Gavin


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Straw, Jack


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley





Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Whitehead, Phillip


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Whitlock, William


Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Tilley, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Torney, Tom
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)
Winnick, David


Wainwright, R.(Colne V)
Woodall, Alec


Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Watkins, David
Wright, Sheila


Weetch, Ken
Young, David (Bolton E)


Wellbeloved, James



Welsh, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


White, Frank R.
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Mr. Derek Foster.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the firm but fair way in which Her Majesty's Government has applied the immigration rules approved by parliament while dealing compassionately with deserving cases.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That at this day's sitting, the Iron and Steel Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Special Development Order (Vauxhall Cross)

Mr. Ted Graham: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning (Vauxhall Cross) Special Development Order 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 796), dated 9th June 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th June, be annulled.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will notice from the Order Paper that the instrument that the House is about to debate has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. As you know, the Joint Committee is established by resolution of the House, and, if the Committee is to exercise its functions properly, then clearly the House should have the advice of the Joint Committee, which was established to scrutinise orders against abuse by Ministers. The House cannot do this if orders are debated before the Committee considers the instruments.
The Government control the timetable of the House, and I am assured by the Opposition Chief Whip that if the Government are prepared to offer an alternative date for the debate of this instrument, subsequent to the consideration by the Committee, undertaking the task that the House has given to the Committee, the House would welcome such an opportunity.
While it is clearly the province of the Government, not you, Mr. Speaker, to decide timetables, I should like to place it on the record that it is desirable for the Committee to consider statutory instruments before they are debated. The Committee has charged me recently with the task of writing both to the Opposition Chief Whip and the Government Chief Whip urging them that before instruments are debated in this fashion, they should contact the Clerk of the Committee to ensure that instruments are debated only after the Committee has scrutinised the instrument, as it is authorised to do by the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am obliged to the hon. Member, but he has already anticipated the point that this is not a point of order on which I can rule. He has made his point and no doubt it will be noticed.

Mr. Graham: There is surely no dispute that what the Secretary of State is about in laying this special development order is to short-circuit the planning system. There should be little criticism of the Secretary of State for realising that in the special development order procedure he has a weapon of direct and simple effect in accord with his behaviour since he occupied his great office of State.
The Secretary of State now asserts that the planning decisions are so complex and widespread in effect and impact that only he has the perception, the vision and the sensitivity needed to evaluate the involved issues. What

is more, the special development order is not just a question of deciding that one design for use in a development plan is superior.
In using SDOs the Secretary of State takes out the involvement of a council exercising its responsibilities by closely scrutinising an application in detail, bringing to bear its special local knowledge of the local scene, environment, people and reactions. For a special development order there has to be an imperative so compelling, urgent and vital to regional or national interest, transcending the ability of local councillors to make good judgments, that the Secretary of State determines that they must not be allowed to exercise their judgment even though his can over-ride theirs. In other words, we are tonight looking for reasons why this Minister knows best, better than those elected to exercise their judgment in these matters.
At this stage the House should know that in this Secretary of State we have a Jekyll and Hyde character. His record of disasters in housing are legion, only worsened, not bettered, by Neville Chamberlain, 60 years ago. His measures, aimed at reforming local government and its functions and finance, have rightly earned him the condemnation of councillors in all parties, including his own, at all levels and at all times.
However, I acknowledge his genuine desire to see that the landscape and the skyline of our cities improved, the infuriating delays in our planning system speeded up, our heritage protected, and our environment made cleaner and safer. This Secretary of State tries very hard. The trouble is that he knows that he knows best. He believes that more and more decision-making should be done in Marsham Street, and not in the town halls of our cities and towns. Our case tonight is not that the Secretary of State has exceeded his power, but that he has abused it, not that he has failed to consult, but that he has ignored those whom he has consulted, not that he does not care, but that he does not care enough about the enormous damage that he is inflicting on central and local relationships in government.
This Secretary of State is a prime advocate of competition in every sphere of economic activity. So it did not surprise anyone when the device of the architectural competition emerged as his contribution to settling once and for all how best to develop what we know as the Vauxhall Cross site. The Wandsworth council is in no doubt about what it will mean on this precious and crucial site, because it said:
The buildings would be massive when viewed from either the river or the landward sides of the site, presenting a solid wall".
When we hear such strictures from local people, surely even this Minister should reflect on the calamity he is on the verge of foisting on local people—and, because of its position, on the nation, too.
Lambeth council has expressed its views about the architectural competition in no uncertain manner, and in particular about the use of an SDO in this case. It told the Secretary of State that the SDO use is immoral, that the SDO negates the council's role as a planning authority, causes uncertainty and delays in the redevelopment of the site, and severely limits public consultation and debate.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether that is the present council, or the previous one that has just been thrown out of office?

Mr. Graham: I have given the views that were sent to the Secretary of State at the appropriate time, December of last year.
Tonight those who represent the area, and other hon. Members who know the site, will talk much more knowledgeably than I can about the best use of the site. I do not assert that there can be a universally accepted scheme. We object to the use of the SDO procedure for the site. This wrong use—this misuse—of SDOs must be resisted now. If the Secretary of State gets his way, he will rely on them in the future, whenever he gets impatient.
In a letter from the DoE to councils, dated 10 June 1981, the Secretary of State said that SDOs
have been used exceedingly sparingly for quite exceptional situations".
He then listed the uses to which SDOs had been used in the past—landscape areas, national parks, new towns, the atomic energy establishments, the Windscale and the Calder works. Comparatively recently, the SDO has been reserved for only such major projects as the Merseyside and London development corporations. If the Secretary of State has his way, the SDO will assume a strategic role, far exceeding the limited use so far.
We know from circulars and from conferences that the Secretary of State has attended that he favours the use of SDOs to extend existing industrial estates by up to 50 per cent., and to change the use of industrial estates. That would remove local authority control over the number and—more important—the type of new jobs that would be created. We know that he favours giving outline permission for housing development. That would weaken the planning authorities' control over the density of development.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about enterprise zones or industrial development areas?

Mr. Graham: The Secretary of State has said that he wants the views of the public and authorities on a wider use of the SDO procedure than has hitherto been accepted. He has said that in industrial areas he is minded to consider the possibility of up to a 50 per cent. increase of its industrial, housing, and other use.
If we consider that this is an inappropriate use of the SDO, we should say so tonight and not leave it until later.
We know that the Secretary of State is in favour of awarding full permission if a developer is prepared to proceed by way of open competition in what he called, in his letter of 10 June,
urban sites of special significance".
We will risk, as in this instance, exposing the community at large to a development which is architecturally of a high standard but which is over-intensive and has the wrong mix of land uses.
Hon. Members tonight will argue with deep knowledge and understanding the case for local needs in housing, a better skyline treatment and a more sympathetic overall view of the whole area surrounding the site so that a development is married into its surroundings and does not literally stick out like a sore thumb.
The faith that the Secretary of State places in the good intentions of the developer to complete the whole of his brief and not just the profitable parts is disturbing. I doubt if there is an hon. Member who has not at least one experience from his borough of a developer who has been given permission but has mysteriously failed to complete

the brief; the profitable parts are completed, but those that could be described as community related are those which unfortunately are not completed whenever there may be a shortage of money or a bankruptcy.
In taking the decision out of the hands of town hall bureaucrats, it is not as if the architectural competition gives the public greater influence over the final choice. In the Standard on 17 June, less than two weeks ago, there appeared the headline:
Public choose big dipper".
One might assume that, because there was a competition, the public had chosen the design. Not a bit of it. A design other than that chosen by popular acclaim will get the contract and the considerable amount of money that goes with it.
Why cannot we be told of the panel's choice? Why cannot that choice be defended if we know that it is only second best? Why cannot the public be asked to explain which scheme they prefer only to ignore them and give no explanation?
The Secretary of State will readily understand why councils and councillors have assumed from his behaviour and announcements that we are witnessing not only a major change in the application of planning law but the end of town and country planning as we have known it in this sphere for a long time.
The Secretary of State would have difficulty, for example, in persuading the Tory borough of Wandsworth and its councillors that rule by Heseltinian fiat is preferable to scrutiny by Wandsworth planning committee, approval by the full council, and, if need be, the full glare of a public inquiry with all the opportunities that that brings to probe, challenge and influence, for the inspector to urge modifications and then for the Secretary of State to issue his approval or otherwise. The House is being invited—unless it supports me in the Lobby—to accept that we are moving into a planning era in which a Secretary of State can ride roughshod over local opinion for a far greater extent than ever before.
I shall conclude with two quotations that seem to encapsulate the themes involved in the debate. The first quotation comes from a speech made by the Secretary of State to the annual meeting of the Royal Institute of British Architects in 1980, in Newcastle upon Tyne. He said:
Who, a century from now will care about the political issues which dominate this week's national newspaper headlines. Very few of these will survive as a memorial to our generation but if we take the wrong decision now, on how to use sites properly in the centre of our capital we shall not easily be forgotten, nor, dare I say, forgiven".
We know that the Secretary of State does not intend to be forgotten. He will not be forgiven if he persists with his present course.
The final comment on the Secretary of State's behaviour comes from the chairman of the planning committee of the GLC. The quotation is worth waiting for. Last November, he said:
The idea of the SDO looks to be in line with the Minister's view that the local councils and the people they serve are a nuisance to be avoided at any cost. Development briefs have been drawn up by ourselves and the borough involved. It seems absurd and undemocratic that we shall not be the ones to decide if any proposal fits the briefs.
The man's name is Ed Gouge. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may not have heard of him, but they will.
The House should support that view. Those who share that view with us can strike a blow for local


government—which is increasingly under assault from the Government and the Secretary of State—by joining my right hon. and hon. Friends and I in the Lobby.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: It might be prudent of me to declare at the outset several professional interests. I am a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects—although not a practising architect—a Fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute, and a non-executive director of a development company. I hasten to add that I have no professional or financial interest in the site in question or the proposed development.
I support the order, which has been introduced under section 24 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. I commend the Secretary of State on his initiatives in promoting architectural competitions as a means of encouraging higher architectural standards. Who is to say that that is not badly needed? In addition, I commend him on his attempt to bring the development of this key site on prime land on the South Bank to fruition.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) seemed to have two criticisms of the order. First, it is said that the Secretary of State is using an exceptional and rare procedure that is mostly used for developments that are considered to be of public benefit for a private development. Secondly, the scheme chosen is criticised. Of course, that is a subjective judgment of design. To that second series of criticisms the hon. Gentleman might add the method of selecting the winning scheme and the schedule of accommodation, or ratio of offices to residential accommodation, shops and open space. I shall deal briefly with both criticisms, although it is important to separate and not mix them up.
This is the first time that a special development order has been used for such a development. However, rightly or wrongly, Parliament has clearly laid down certain procedures for town and country planning. Hon. Members should read section 24 of the principal Act.
The Town and Country Planning Act not only devolves considerable powers to local planning authorities but gives powers to the Secretary of State. As on previous occasions, the Secretary of State can call in such a development plan under section 35, which gives him power to determine any planning application submitted to a local planning authority.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: rose—

Mr. Chapman: I give way to the right hon. Member, who has great experience in these matters.

Mr. Freeson: There is such a power in the Act, as in previous legislation. Leaving aside the judgment about the present proposal or whether the plan is private or public, does the hon. Gentleman accept that it has always been understood that the power should be used only when a matter of national interest is involved? If the hon. Gentleman checks any Department of the Environment file, he will discover that the power has been used only in connection with developments decided on the basis of national and major public importance.

Mr. Chapman: I accept that, but that the power can be used only when a matter of national importance is

involved is not written into the legislation. There are exceptional and national reasons why a special development order should be made.
Land use is not an issue for the Vauxhall Cross site. The decision has already been made that the site should be principally for office use. Earlier proposals for substantial parts of the site have already been considered at public inquiries. The site is basically divided into two parts—north and south of Vauxhall bridge on the east side of the river. By my calculations part of the site has been derelict for 23 years, and part of it has been empty and unused for 32 years. Environmentally, the use of the site for a tall building was decided 20 years ago.
The district plan—called the local plan in Lambeth, but the site touches Wandsworth—allows for the proposed density. I understand that a later decision by Lambeth council is that the ratio of floor area to site should be 2:1 maximum, whereas the proposed ratio is 2½:1. The district plan also mentions a limit of 300 ft to the height of the proposed development.
I believe that the site is suitable for a tall building because of the wide expanse of the Thames in front and the desolate expanse—if I may call it that without insulting anyone—of roads, railway and indifferent development behind, That is a subjective judgment.
I turn to the development merits, or demerits, of the scheme. The architectural competition system has fallen into disuse in recent years. It is important to realise why. Clients, or prospective developers, believe that the schemes imposed upon them by such a system, albeit organised by the Royal Institute of British Architects, has involved little or no commercial viability. Developers increasingly have not used the system as a result. Now the Royal Institute of British Architects has reorganised the system and the promoter has, understandably and properly, the final choice after specialist architectural assessors have identified the best schemes in the competition. No fewer than 128 architects submitted entries to this competition, including many leading British firms. Eight were short listed, and three reached the final round. My intelligence tells me that those three were the most popular with the public who visited the exhibition and were asked to comment on them. The winner was a firm called Allsop Sebire and Happold.
The three assessors were a former distinguished chief architect of the old London county council, a very distinguished young architect and, naturally, the development company's architect. I am aware that one man's aesthetic judgment is another man's poison, but I have the utmost confidence that the proposed development is an excellent design that the public will grow to admire. What great architectural scheme, thrown out to competition, has ever been left to the judgment of a popular vote among the public in the last resort? Certainly not St. Paul's Cathedral, Coventry Cathedral or the august Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Roger Moate: My hon. Friend seems to attach considerable importance to public judgment. He says that the three schemes that were shortlisted were the three most popular with the public who saw the exhibition. The evidence that I saw in a newspaper was that that was not the case. If it is that important, should we not have been told which were the most popular and how many votes each attracted?

Mr. Chapman: The three from the original 128 that were selected for submission to the promoters were the most popular in the opinion of those who visited the exhibition. It may be that the scheme finally chosen by the promoter was not the one most popular with those who visited the exhibition, but there is no reason why it should be. Would the public have chosen Sir Basil Spence's Scheme for Coventry Cathedral? It was widely disliked when it was chosen by an expert panel.

Mr. John Tilley: Does not the hon. Gentleman believe that he should know before pontificating in that way to the House? It is a crucial point. The press clearly said that the most popular of the schemes was not that chosen by the developer. The hon. Gentleman should know whether that is true before he generalises in that way.

Mr. Chapman: I am not trying to generalise. I am trying to give the House the benefit of the intelligence that was given to me. I do not know whether the scheme that won was the most popular in the public mind. The press tells me not, but surely the hon. Gentleman is not telling us that we should believe all that we read in the newspapers. I cannot be certain, but my intelligence informed me that the final three schemes chosen were the most popular in the public opinion. I cannot be more open or honest about that point.
The design is excellent. It is not an over-intensive development of the site. It will bring new life to the area and welcome rate revenue to the local authority. After years of delay, argument and decision, it is truly in the public interest that this special development order should be approved. If it is, the building will become a distinctive and distinguished contribution to the South Bank. Instead of criticising my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the House should commend his initiative and enterprise.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I remind the House that the debate ends at 11.30 pm.

Mr. Stuart Holland: We have to ask ourselves in the context of the debate what is a special development order. It clearly can be seen that previously it has been used for an arguably defensible public over-ride of private interests. Initially it was used for national parks and new town developments. It is now to be used as an over-ride of public, for private, interests. That is a major change in the use of the order.
The Secretary of State, in a written answer on 5 November, said that the procedure would offer
greater certainty for the developer if he works … within a planning brief that has my support.
Secondly, he claimed that it would encourage
a wider public debate about a range of choices and solutions for a particular site".—[Official Report,5 November 1981; Vol. 12, c. 1.]
The House must ask itself who the Secretary of State is trying to fool. First, he has used a negative rather than an affirmative procedure in laying the order. It is widely recognised that the negative procedure provides a less stringent form of parliamentary control than an affirmative order.
Secondly, the Secretary of State said that he was trying to encourage wider public debate about a range of choices,

but in the Upper Waiting Hall he has exhibited only the winning design for the scheme rather than the alternative three final designs shortlisted from the final eight. The next site where such a special development order may possibly be used is the Coin Street site, also in my constituency. Yet when, as a matter of routine, I asked the Secretary of State whether he would give his permission for the exhibition of the alternative model for the site proposed by the Association of Waterloo Groups, he replied monosyllabically, saying "No". Hon. Members will appreciate the significance of that. The Upper Waiting Hall is an area which most of us pass at least once a week, and where any scheme is openly visible. The showing of a model or an exhibit in a Committee room, if one can get past the Serjeant at Arms, is behind closed doors and not visible.
There is another less obvious implication to which the House should address itself. The accepted procedure by which a Member asks for permission to exhibit models should be a formality. If refused, the publicity for new schemes, which the Secretary of State claims, is mere window dressing for his own scheme and proscription for other competing or community schemes. One would have thought that the Secretary of State would have learnt from the recent manipulation of publicity by a certain Argentine general during the Falklands war that Government control of publicity becomes incredible to most people most of the time. Indeed, if the Secretary of State wishes to avoid being known as the General Heseltieri of this and other schemes subject to his new use of special development orders, he should not veto what presumably he considers to be the bad news of community alternatives.
Besides, when the Secretary of State talks of wider choices and solutions, we must ask whose choice and whose solutions? The answer is simple: "the developer's". Certainly, eight designs were exhibited. Three were shortlisted. But the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) failed to say that it was the developer alone who chose the winning scheme. Members of the public visiting the exhibition on site were invited to express their preference, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) has made plain, the results of their choice have never been published. As the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet seems to be unclear on the matter, Arunbridge Limited, the company concerned, according to the report in The Standard of 17 June, refused to say which scheme had gained public support. It said:
That is confidential and will not be revealed until such time as we decide".
So where is the great public debate that we wanted and that the Secretary of State assured the House on 5 November we would have?

Mr. Chapman: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, as the client decides whether to build a building, he should decide who designs the building, without any architectural competition, which is better than having open international architectural competition? Do the results show that that is better?

Mr. Holland: The hon. Gentleman leads me to my next point. What is the nature of the competition? What are the criteria for such forms of competition? They are not public or social criteria. They are not integrated with the area or with the riverside, which is a crucial inner London area. Nor are they related to the community. The criteria are purely visual. They are purely design criteria.
The Secretary of State claimed, in justification of the orders, that they would speed up public development. But the developer only must begin work on the site within five years. Where is the speed-up there? Also, despite the fact that he is allowed to choose the winning scheme, he is not obliged to use the architects for the winning scheme. In other words, the architects are paid a fee to withdraw from the scheme. As a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet should be well aware that the way in which the scheme has been forwarded has given rise to controversy in the RIBA.
The core of the objection to the scheme lies in its implications for town and country planning procedure. It is claimed that planning procedures take time. I have already pointed out that we may have to wait five years before ground is broken on the scheme. We must also take into account the fact that there is no obligation on the developer to complete the scheme as one unit. Anyone who considers the second paragraph of the order will see that a developer could begin with zone one without also having to undertake to complete zone five. The operation could be spun out over more than five years. The time argument in that respect, therefore, does not wash. And planning procedures at least have the merit of involving the local community in the wider social issue.
Conservative Members seem to be remarkably sanguine in their support of the present use of special development orders. I draw to their attention the fact that the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), when he was Secretary of State for the Environment between 1970 and 1972, had the merit of accepting the concept of development plans of which the Waterloo district plan was the prototype. That plan moved progressively towards involving local communities with local councils in alternative schemes for a site as part of a strategic use of land in a given area.
Even the last use of a special development order for the site of the Windscale power station followed a public inquiry into the specific proposals, unlike the present scheme which is not associated with a public inquiry or consultation with local authorities or witih local community or amenity groups.
In that connection, the Vauxhall Society has submitted to the Secretary of State in writing its opposition both to the procedure for and the specific use of the site. It has drawn attention to the fact that it will have an excessively high plot ratio, and to the fact that it proposes a further extension of the continuous physical barrier that has been created by post-war development along the Albert Embankment. It is concerned about the indequate provision of public open space which it believes should form a substantial proportion of the developed site, and also that the riverside walk is token and does not compensate in terms of area for the loss of existing public foreshore. The Thames Conservation Society has also forcefully made that point. The Vauxhall Society also objects to the fact that there has been no real consideration of the problems of pedestrian circulation in an area where there is already a heavily congested traffic junction and to the fact that the buildings, in the main extremely expensive accommodation, will be for speculative lettings.
Those issues cannot be debated reasonably or in detail in the time that is available today. They are the heart and substance of the local planning inquiry into this scheme that should have but has not taken place.
The Vauxhall Cross Amenity Trust opposed such a scheme with large slab-like buildings that would form massive and forbidding barriers. It would like to see the Vauxhall Bridge sites developed as lively and well-used centres, not only during the office working day but at other times. It is also doubtful about the adequacy of the road arrangements. But again, we cannot consider these issues adequately in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton points out that even Tory Wandsworth is opposed to the scheme.
Without exaggeration, if special development orders are used in this selective way by negative procedures in the House it is not automatic that they will be debated, they have to be prayed against. They have been used rarely and have not been used in this context at all, so the practice is not entirely clear. But if an individual hon. Member prays against the use of such a special development order there may be no guarantee that the matter will be debated in the House.
Indeed, no local authority in any major conurbation can be guaranteed that it can proceed with a strategic plan for its area if the Secretary of State unilaterally uses such special development orders. That means the end of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, and its subsequent amendments, as we know it. The thrust and essence of the Act is that there should be consultation on a strategic plan. But with SDOs there is no strategic plan and no consultation. If the Secretary of State had the courage of his convictions, not only would he have come to the House to face these arguments but he would have come with an amendment to the Town and Country Planning Act, to make plain and try to justify why he is using special development orders in this way.

Mr. John Heddle: The hon. Gentleman is well known in his constituency and elsewhere for his interest in creating jobs and homes in his constituency. How many jobs does he think 1·15 million sq ft of office accommodation will provide and how many homes for his constituents will 260,000 sq ft of residential accommodation provide? More particularly, how many jobs for the construction industry will the project create?

Mr. Holland: If the Secretary of State for the Environment were interested in creating jobs in the construction industry he would be aware that in England and Wales less than 7 per cent. of council housing is constructed by direct labour departments. About 93 per cent. is constructed by private contractors. There is massive unemployment of about one-third of a million construction workers because the Secretary of State has axed the council housing programme.
But this housing will not provide accommodation for my constituents. If the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) had anything other than a passing acquaintance with Vauxhall Cross or the Vauxhall area, he would realise that in the main my constituents do not come into the social class who can afford the penthouse-type accommodation being offered.
The hon. Gentleman should also note this fact. It is precisely the local community groups in my constituency which have made it plain to me that it is not people from


Lambeth alone who are employed in office developments in Lambeth. Contract cleaners, for example, employed in major office developments, come from a wide catchment area. The hon. Gentleman cannot argue that the development will benefit my constituents. Not a single constituent—despite one or two sitting on the Government Benches—has written to me in support of the scheme. Every local community group and association opposes it.

Mr. Tilley: To assume, as Conservative Members do, that if an office block is built it is tenanted is a hoax. If we continue to create that amount of office space we may have empty Green Giants for the next 30 years.

Mr. Holland: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
Among the many monosyllabic replies that I have had from the Secretary of State for the Environment was one following a question I had asked him whether he had made any estimate of the overall demand and supply for office space in the Greater London area. In his reply the Secretary of State simply said "No". So there is no evaluation on these sites or sites at Coin Street and Hays Wharf, whether office development, which may go through by special development orders if not challenged by the House, will be tenanted. There is an increase of 10 per cent. in the office stock in Central London, whereas evidence of application of new technology in office use shows that office staff may be reduced by between 15 and 30 per cent. by the introduction of word processors and data processors.
If it were a private matter the Secretary of State could make an error of judgment in relation to one site. If it is cumulative, he will make it in relation to the property industry as a whole. Those hon. Members on the Government Benches supporting the property developers' lobby who see only the upswing of the cycle, are taken for a ride and then let down in the slump often lose not only their money but that of other people.
It is noticeable that Mr. Ronnie Lyons, who is the agent for the site, notoriously went bankrupt during the last blow-out of the property boom leaving unredeemed debts of over £30 million. We understand that he has certain Middle East finance from one source only through Artoc Ltd. based responsibly in the Bahamas. What will happen to the scheme—

Sir Frederick Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we not dealing with the order, and does not what the hon. Gentleman is saying go far beyond the terms of the order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The order deals with the desirability of permitted development of the kind envisaged. A large number of developments are in fact envisaged.

Mr. Holland: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because my point refers to this specific site, and the developer, to whose bankruptcy I have referred, is involved with the site. We understand that he has only one source of finance—perhaps the Under-Secretary will correct that. What will happen if the financier pulls the rug from under him in the middle of the scheme if Mr. Lyons wants to go ahead with all the zones in the site, especially when his backers see how foolish the Secretary of State is to believe that office development is a sound investment, when within the last decade we saw that market collapse?
These issues are both specific to the site and of general interest. The way to proceed with such sites is not to kick the local community in the teeth but to show that the Secretary of State is prepared to have a fuller involvement of the community by wider and more extensive debate.
In inner city areas low-hope has given way to no-hope for many people. The Secretary of State has drawn attention, in relation to the events of Brixton and Toxteth, to the importance of preserving viable communities in inner city areas. What is the point of local community groups attending meetings where they draft, amend and argue proposals for the area, as the Vauxhall Society and the Vauxhall Amenity Trust have done, if the Secretary of State can descend like some dark angel and tell them that it was a waste of time and that they might as well pack up and go home?
The Secretary of State believes that he has some relationship to Sir Christopher Wren for the beautification of some of our inner city areas. I suggest that another bird is more appropriate as a metaphor—the bird of prey that seeks rich pickings from other's killings. In this case it is an alleged killing in the property market which the Secretary of State has made possible by giving greater certainty to the developer.
Many people have summarised these issues, but apart from the coverage in the press— The Sunday Times, The Sunday Telegraph and the Financial Times question the whole use of SDOs—Spike Milligan is probably closer to the mark in the statement he made to a press conference here today. He said:
The winning design, for all the Secretary of State's aspirations, has all the charisma of an out-of-order telephone box".

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that he is driving hon. Members into a Lobby that they may not wish to go through and is taking up time that others might use more profitably.

Mr. Holland: If Conservative Members had not sought to hold up a short debate by inviting me to reply to their points, my contribution would have been finished much earlier. The hon. Gentleman has a great concern for issues such as London's skyline and he should not seek to excuse himself on this crucial vote by referring to what one other hon. Member has said. That would be a shoddy excuse.
Mr. Milligan also said:
If this scheme is architecture, the Brigade of Guards are Boy Scouts".
I commend his judgment to the House, and I urge hon. Members to support the prayer to annul a scandalous and indefensible order.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): Hon. Members have criticised the order for three main reasons. First, some do not like the scheme that has been selected, secondly, there is disagreement with the land use strategy for the sites in question, and the third objection is the SDO procedure used by the Government. I will try in the time available to deal with those principal objections.
The scheme emerged from a competition which was open to all architects registered in the United Kingdom. Normally, the developer would have selected his own architect and there would have been no element of choice


or competition in the design of the site. The promoters set up the competition with the guidance of the Royal Institute of British Architects, using one of its formats for competitions. It was organised in detail and run by a panel of assessors.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) said, four invitations were issued to join the panel of assessors—two to distinguished independent architects nominated by the RIBA, one to the developer's architect and one to the local planning authority, Lambeth council, to nominate one of its officers. Lambeth council, control of which has happily changed hands, decided that it did not want to be involved in the competition.
The format selected for the competition was that termed "promoter choice" by the RIBA. It is a format designed to achieve the advantages of the competition system in producing choice, and allowing new ideas and talent to surface, without the likelihood of the competition throwing up a winning design which is uneconomic or impracticable to build.
All architects registered in the United Kingdom were eligible for the competition and 128 entered, investing considerable effort in the process. The assessors, among which the developer's architect was in a minority, chose a short list of eight who went on to the second stage of the competition, working up their designs in more detail. These were put on display, giving the public the opportunity to pass on their comments to the assessors, who selected the three schemes that they thought best—and all worthy of the site. From there, the developer chose the winning design. There is no way of producing a scheme that is acceptable to every hon Member, but great efforts have been made to enable a high quality and practical scheme to emerge.

Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir George Young: I must try to answer the many points made in the debate. If the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) had not taken so much time, it might have been possible for me to give way.
The second line of opposition that I referred to was land use. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, in terms of the statutory planning process, the appropriate use of this site had been exceptionally clearly established before the competition was launched. As hon. Members have already explained the site has until recently been considered in three separate parts: the European Ferries site, the Effra site, and the cold store upstream of that.
All the sites have been used for industrial purposes, but since those uses disappeared the sites have been earmarked for offices or public buildings, with pedestrian access to the riverside and open space beside it. The framework is set out in the Greater London development plan approved by the then Secretary of State in 1976. Lambeth council's Waterloo district plan, which the council adopted in 1977, provided a more detailed interpretation of the GLDP. It recognised that all the sites were suitable for office development, subject to detailed design constraints and the provision of riverside open space, some residential accommodation and other facilities for the benefit of the public. The GLDP and the Waterloo district plan are statutory documents that have had to go through substantial consultation procedures. Lambeth Council has

also published more detailed, though non-statutory, guidance for the development of the Effra and European Ferries site.
The brief for the competition was drawn up by the panel of assessors, and it incorporated all this planning background. All the competitors received copies of Lambeth council's design guides for the European Ferries and Effra sites. They were given the inspectors' reports on the two public inquiries, which incorporated full accounts of Lambeth council's and the GLC's evidence about those sites. They were also sent my right hon. Friend's decision letters on the applications considered at one of the inquiries. The brief also benefited from the detailed discussions that Arunbridge Limited had already had with Lambeth council about the Effra site.

Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that there would have been a more satisfactory context for the competition if the Skyline Protection Bill had become law? I introduced that Bill with support from hon. Members in all parts of the House and several members of the present Government, but it was talked out by Labour Members. Does he agree that there is a great need for protection of the skyline and that there would have been a happier result if that, or a similar Bill, had been enacted?

Sir George Young: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's Bill had considerable merit. It is a matter of regret that it did not reach the statute book.
As regards the skyline, the GLC and Lambeth council have indicated that their interpretation of high buildings policy is that buildings should not be higher than 300 ft. The maximum height of buildings permitted by the order is 280 ft, so it is within the strategy of the GLC and Lambeth council.
The land use issues have already been settled in accordance with the statutory development plan, and efforts have been made to meet the detailed concerns of Lambeth council and the GLC.
The third point to emerge from the debate is as to the use of special development orders. The provisions for making development orders have been an integral part of the planning system from the beginning. They can be made either in the form of general development orders, applying throughout England and Wales, or in the form of special development orders, applicable only to specified land. They have been used for a variety of purposes—to introduce special planning regimes in environmentally sensitive areas, to grant permission for development in new towns, and to permit development in certain areas.
The use of SDOs to grant planning permission for specific sites has been rare. The latest precedent is the order permitting the construction of the Windscale development, made by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) in 1978.
This is the first time that an order has been used to grant planning permission in such detail. Before the competition was proposed, my right hon. Friend circulated a consultation paper exploring the scope for wider use of the SDO procedure in improving the operation of the planning system. This is an example of one of the possibilities floated in the consultation paper.
When the idea of a competition was put to my right hon. Friend, we faced an almost classic case of the stagnation that the existing system can sometimes produce—an


important site, most of which had been virtually derelict for a quarter of a century and the future of which was interminably debated.
The time had clearly come for quick and decisive action. The SDO procedure offered the possibility of substantial savings in time compared with the alternative of leaving the owners of the site to make another planning application after the competition had run to its conclusion, with the possibility of yet another public inquiry before the future of the site was decided. A decision to proceed by SDO, provided that a suitable scheme emerged, also meant that, instead of having to wait until the final proposal came before him after a long process, my right hon. Friend was able to make a contribution to the planning background of the competition brief by seeing that it was in general conformity with the development plan and the views expressed in his decision letter.
Criticism of the SDO procedure as being undemocratic is misplaced. It is important that we make the right comparison. We should not be comparing the SDO procedure with the procedure for handling a planning application of purely local significance. This is a site of national significance. A feature of the planning system has always been that the Secretary of State has the power to call in applications of wider than local significance for his own decision. Major sites on the banks of the Thames have been judged to be of broader significance. Coin Street, Hays Wharf and the "Green Giant" provide examples. Therefore, decisions on sites of national importance will generally be taken by the Secretary of State on his own, although he is ultimately answerable to Parliament, rather than by the local authority which is answerable to the local community.

Mr. Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir George Young: No. I must make more progress.
When the SDO procedure is used, the decision is for Parliament directly. In this case, the local community has been involved. The community's views have been explored in the preparation of the statutory development plan and at two public inquiries. During the competition, the public had the opportunity to comment on the eight short listed schemes.
Normally, like the local planning authority or the Secretary of State, one is presented with only one option to accept or reject. I regret Lambeth council's decision not to participate fully in the competition process, but it was the council's decision. I have to reject what was said by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). The Secretary of State was not seeking to impose his own taste on London. It would be indefensible for an individual to seek to impose his personal views in that way. The chosen scheme has emerged from a rigorous process organised by a panel of experts. The Secretary of State had no part in the selection process. Not everyone likes the scheme that has emerged from that process—

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Sir George Young: I may give way in a moment. I wish to finish this part of my speech.
I think that universal experience in the planning system is that it is infinitely easier to obtain objections than support. It was suggested that the developer might undertake the profitable part of the scheme and abandon the rest of it. If hon. Members study the order, they will

see how tightly the developer is bound to implement the approved scheme. Phasing conditions have been built into the permission, so that no offices can be occupied until a major section of the river wall has been built and the housing and other parts of the scheme in that phase have been completed.

Mr. Clement Freud: Is there a fee for an SDO in the same way as there would be a fee for a planning application?

Sir George Young: I understand that a fee does not arise in this case.
We have an opportunity to end 25 years of uncertainty and dereliction with a scheme of high architectural quality which meets the conditions of the approved development plan. When the scheme is completed, the offices will provide employment for 5,000 or 6,000 people with another 200 jobs in the shops.
The development will provide a great deal for the general public. It will provide 1,800 ft of riverside wall and walk from Albert Embankment, where the riverside walk at present stops, at Alembic House, right through to, under and beyond Vauxhall Bridge. If the two sites had been developed separately, the length of walk and wall in front of the existing buildings linking Albert Embankment with this development might have been delayed indefinitely. While the scheme is being built, it will provide the construction industry with work of value approaching £100 million at today's prices. That will require the employment of about 1,000 people for five years, if that is the time within which the scheme is completed.

Mr. Moate: I welcome the speed of decision making. Can my hon. Friend give me one good reason why I should now vote for a scheme against which as a member of the public, I voted and expressed a view in favour of another?

Sir George Young: I have explained the precautions taken to ensure that a scheme of the highest architectural quality emerged. I regret that it did not command the support of my hon. Friend. That is not the choice facing my hon. Friend. The choice is that if the order does not go through, there will be no development on this site.
I say to the hon. Member for Edmonton that if this development is a memorial to my right hon. Friend, the site as it now is is a monument and memorial to the Opposition. More years of delay, more haggling and more blight should not be tolerated by the House. I urge my hon. Friend's to reject the prayer.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 132.

Division No. 247]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Anderson, Donald
Deakins, Eric


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Ashton, Joe
Dixon, Donald


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Dormand, Jack


Beith, A. J.
Douglas, Dick


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Evans, John (Newton)


Cohen, Stanley
Field, Frank


Cook, Robin F.
Foster, Derek


Cryer, Bob
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Davidson, Arthur
Freud, Clement






Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Graham, Ted
Prescott, John


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Race, Reg


Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Robertson, George


Homewood, William
Roper, John


Howells, Geraint
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Huckfield, Les
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Leighton, Ronald
Sheerman, Barry


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Hugh
Snape, Peter


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Soley, Clive


McElhone, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stallard, A. W.


McKelvey, William
Strang, Gavin


McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McWilliam, John
Tilley, John


Marks, Kenneth
Welsh, Michael


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
White, Frank R.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Woodall, Alec


Newens, Stanley
Woolmer, Kenneth


Ogden, Eric
Wrigglesworth, Ian


O'Neill, Martin
Wright, Sheila


Palmer, Arthur



Park, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Parry, Robert
Mr. George Morton and


Pitt, William Henry
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Budgen, Nick


Alexander, Richard
Burden, Sir Frederick


Ancram, Michael
Cad bury, Jocelyn


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Chapman, Sydney


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cope, John


Best, Keith
Costain, Sir Albert


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cranborne, Viscount


Blackburn, John
Crouch, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bright, Graham
Dover, Denshore


Brinton, Tim
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Durant, Tony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Brotherton, Michael
Eggar, Tim


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Elliott, Sir William




Emery, Sir Peter
Normanton, Tom


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Onslow, Cranley


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Parris, Matthew


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Pattie, Geoffrey


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Percival, Sir Ian


Goodlad, Alastair
Proctor, K. Harvey


Gow, Ian
Rathbone, Tim


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Renton, Tim


Gummer, John Selwyn
Rhodes James, Robert


Hamilton, Hon A.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Haselhurst, Alan
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hawksley, Warren
Rifkind, Malcolm


Henderson, Barry
Rossi, Hugh


Hicks, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.


King, Rt Hon Tom
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lamont, Norman
Speller, Tony


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stanley, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stevens, Martin


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Loveridge, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Luce, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


McCrindle, Robert
Thompson, Donald


Macfarlane, Neil
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


MacGregor, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Major, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marlow, Antony
Trippier, David


Mather, Carol
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Waddington, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Waldegrave, Hon William


Moate, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Morgan, Geraint
Watson, John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wheeler, John


Mudd, David
Whitney, Raymond


Murphy, Christopher
Wilkinson, John


Myles, David
Wolfson, Mark


Neale, Gerrard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Needham, Richard



Nelson, Anthony
Tellers for the Noes:


Neubert, Michael
Mr. David Hunt and


Newton, Tony
Mr. Ian Lang.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Iron and Steel Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a consolidation Bill. Its purpose is to bring together in one enactment the principal enactments relating to the British Steel Corporation. As usual, the Joint Committee has considered the Bill, and we are greatly indebted to it for checking and assuring us that it makes no change in the law.
On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Mather.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — ADMINSTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — PROCEDURE (FINANCE)

Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 22nd January relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on Procedure (Finance) be amended, by adding Mr. John D. McWilliam.—[Mr. Mather.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to make amendments for England and Wales of provisions of that part of the law relating to local authorities or highways which is commonly amended by local Acts, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act of Parliament which is attributable to the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Mather.]

Orders of the Day — Derbyshire (Intermediate Status)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]

Mr. Raymond Ellis: What has just happened in the House is an excellent example of the way in which Derbyshire has been treated in its effort to retain its intermediate status.
I learnt with some satisfaction that I had been given today's Adjournment debate because I thought that at long last the Government would be compelled to listen to Derbyshire's case for its retention of intermediate status, and that possibly they could be persuaded to meet a properly organised deputation, which they have not yet done, before a final decision was made.
You can imagine my feelings this afternoon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I discovered that I had been given the opportunity to put the case only after the case had been pre-judged; only after the verdict had been declared.
It will come as a surprise to all hon. Members to hear that all along the line the Government have refused to listen to any properly organised representation of Derbyshire's case, Only last week, David Bookbinder, the leader of the Derbyshire council, said to me that surely the Government have a duty to at least acknowledge Derbyshire's existence.
It seems that the Government do not have that duty. It would also seem that the Government do not accept the duty to acknowledge the existence of the massive numbers of hon. Members who represent Derbyshire either.
Other areas have been given ample opportunity to put their case, but Derbyshire has not. On 2 December 1981 Derbyshire county council submitted its case to the Secretary of State, who has just left. That case was rejected out of hand.
Since then the county council has tried to persuade the Under-Secretary to meet a deputation. That request has also been met with persistent point blank refusal. It is because of that point blank refusal to hear the case, and in the light of the Prime Minister's pledge to listen to representations relating to increased unemployment, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Ilkeston (Mr. Fletcher), Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and myself wrote to the Prime Minister asking her to meet us in order to enable her to honour her pledge.
In her reply to me today the right hon. Lady has flatly refused to do so. In view of the wealth of evidence now available to the Department of Industry about Derbyshire, none of which came from any official source in Derbyshire, the Prime Minister said:
I feel that a meeting with me at this stage would serve no useful purpose.
That, to me, is a blank refusal.
However, the matter is worse than that. In her reply, which I received today after the statement, she informed me that there has been a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State. He has at long last received a deputation. She goes on to tell me that she understands that I have been invited to the deputation. I must inform the Prime Minister that she misunderstands the situation. I have not been invited. It was not until I received her letter today after the statement that I was officially notified that the deputation consisted of a Conservative Minister, a Conservative


Member of Parliament and two Conservative opposition members from the minuscule minority on the Derbyshire county council. With that sort of meeting and representation, who can be surprised if my colleagues on the county council decline to touch it with a barge pole?
It should not need humble little me to remind the Government that consultation and/or negotiation with district and county councils should be with the district and county councils and not members of minority groups of their own ilk, chosen as they see fit. In her reply, the Prime Minister attempted to say that I would anyway be able to debate the case tonight. But what is the point of debating the case if this afternoon's statement is final? I shall concentrate on trying to persuade the Government that they have mishandled Derbyshire's case and that they should reconsider it.
I am not so arrogant as to think that the Secretary of State made the statement as a pre-emptive strike to stifle me, but it has at least had that effect. However, our case is cast-iron. I shall briefly outline the points, although some of my colleagues might also wish to speak. However, I would prefer the case to come from the horse's mouth—the elected representatives in Derbyshire.
There has been a phenomenal rise in unemployment in Derbyshire. Unemployment is still rising and it is higher than in many areas that will again be in receipt of intermediate status. The official forecast of the decline in Derbyshire's activity and employment is that it will be catastrophic unless something is done. The situation in Derbyshire will be worse than that in almost any other part of the country. Derbyshire is a responsible county and was induced by intermediate status to put millions and millions of pounds into creating industrial estates and reclaiming land to assist those who came to the county to create work. All that money will go down the drain.
I do not have time to elaborate the case, but it must be heard. It should be heard from the Derbyshire authorities. Derbyshire county council has been disregarded and at least five district councils have been refused the right to be heard.
The third paragraph of the Secretary of State's statement claims that since 1979 "there has been a very substantial increase in employment nationwide" and that that "increase has formed the basis of a large number of representations which the Government have received in respect of many areas from hon. Members, local authorities and others". The right hon. Gentleman admits that he has listened to others, but he has not listened to us. The Government have not listened to Derbyshire and have wilfully refused to do so. The proper procedures have been consistently disregarded. The time-honoured practice of all Governments of parliamentary representation has been discarded.
The way in which the duly elected district councils, the county council and the great mass of Derbyshire Members of Parliament have been ignored amounts to a studied insult not only to us, but to the electorate of Derbyshire. The only way to put right that wrong and to restore the Government's reputation is to exclude Derbyshire from today's decision, to go back to square one, to hear proper representations and to listen to the case. If the Government do that, they will come up with a different answer.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman have the agreement of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Ellis) to intervene in the Adjournment debate?

Mr. Skinner: I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Ellis) had made it clear that any one of the other hon. Members present might wish to intervene. I shall be as brief as possible.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on having the foresight to apply for an Adjournment debate and on being successful. The Government saw fit to pre-empt the issue on the very date of the Adjournment debate because it was too embarrassing for them.
The Derbyshire county council asked for a meeting with the Secretary of State way back in March. It made successive appeals for a meeting. The Prime Minister has said on many occasions, and once from the Dispatch Box, that she is happy to meet people with unemployment problems. As my hon. Friend said, we received a letter today from the Prime Minister about a meeting held last week to which neither myself nor my hon. Friend, or anybody else of whom I am aware, was invited. We are not supposed to use the unparliamentary term "lying", but it looks a lot like it to me. A letter was sent by the Prime Minister suggesting that we were invited to a meeting. The Under-Secretary of State has sent another letter, confirming that the Prime Minister was wrong, because he reminds us of what took place at the meeting.
The sad fact is that North-East Derbyshire, Bolsover, Chesterfield, and the Amber Valley have suffered tremendously as a result of the threat to withdraw intermediate area status. The Secretary of State decided to take that step soon after the 1979 election. I am told that thousands of acres of land could have been taken up had it not been for the fact that intermediate area status was to be phased out in July 1982.
Intermediate area status was granted in North Derbyshire on two occasions by Labour Governments. In 1968, when the first plans were devised, I came with a deputation from Clay Cross and we managed to persuade the Labour Government to see sense and to grant intermediate area status to certain parts of the area. Later, after abortive attempts under the Tory Government between 1970 and 1974, we made a fresh application to have the Chesterfield travel-to-work area included. That includes part of my constituency. That was granted, again by a Labour Government, after a gap of many years. This Tory Government, hell bent on creating misery and unemployment throughout the land, have steadfastly refused to change their attitude. That is the story of intermediate area status. We recognise that such regional policy is not sufficient to get back to fewer than 1 million people on the scrap heap and the dole, but it helps.
We know what the Tory Government are up to. They refuse to meet the Derbyshire county council. They refuse to meet all the other local authorities and connive with a Tory Member, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), in a tinpot meeting held last Tuesday. All the other authorities up and down the land which have made applications to see the Minister have been granted meetings. Meetings have taken place in Lancashire, for instance. Yet, the Government refuse steadfastly to meet the Derbyshire people.
I am pleased to support my hon. Friend today. The Tories are shown up for what they are worth by making the announcement today and refusing to rescue the Derbyshire area from the demise arising from the cancellation of intermediate area status. I join my hon. Friend in calling on the Minister to review the matter and to tell the Secretary of State that he has an obligation.
After intermediate area status had operated for several years, unemployment fell below the national average. The system worked to some degree. Chesterfield, Bolsover, North-East Derbyshire and Amber Valley now have unemployment levels well above the national average. That is the fact that was told to us by the representatives of the local authorities which met Labour Members a few weeks ago. I am happy to support my hon. Friend in his application for another review for the Derbyshire area.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): I congratulate the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Ellis) on securing an Adjournment debate. I do not know whether to congratulate or sympathise with him on the fact that he secured a debate on the day of the announcement about assisted area status. I assure him that it was not an attempt to pre-empt his position or the debate tonight, and I do not believe that he expected that to be the case. However, it gives him the opportunity, at greater length than hon. Members this afternoon who could raise only single questions, to put forward his points about assisted area status in some travel-to-work areas in Derbyshire. It also gives me the opportunity to explain the position in detail in a way that was not possible earlier today. The hon. Gentleman and the House know what the meat of my reply will be.
The hon. Gentleman referred to his disappointment at hearing that no part of Derbyshire will retain assisted area status. Before I turn to the details of the area and why the application was not accepted, I should spend a few moments on two wider aspects of the subject. The first is the one on which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) concentrated rather than pressing the merits of the two travel-to-work areas. They said that the Government had not listened to Derbyshire's case. I assure him that I have examined that case carefully on each occasion. It was put in detail in documents in November 1981 and June 1982. I have both documents here. The hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred this afternoon to the fact that we had received many representations. I assure him that many of them were written. They went into considerable detail, and by no means did all the representations lead to deputations being seen by either me or my hon. Friends.

Mr. Skinner: Some did.

Mr. MacGregor: Of course some did, because there are rather less clear-cut cases, but I shall come to the reasons in a moment.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that he has met representatives from Tory constituencies and, as outlined in the proposals described today, no Labour constituency has had its intermediate area status continued?

Mr. MacGregor: As so often, the hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. In view of that, I shall not allow

him to intervene again. We received deputations from many Labour Members. The change of status in travel-to-work areas has affected Labour, Liberal and Conservative constituencies.
I assure the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East that there is no shortage of evidence available about the position in Derbyshire. As he said, in December 1981 the clerk and chief executive of the county council wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State presenting evidence why, in the council's view, those parts of the county that had assisted area status—the Alfreton and Chesterfield travel-to-work areas, upon which the representations concentrated—should not lose it as planned. I considered the submission carefully, but found it impossible to justify retention of assisted area status, as I shall explain. That decision was conveyed to the chief executive towards the end of December.
The council made further representations in March and April, both of which I considered carefully, but I could find no justification for reversing the decision The position was so clear-cut that at that time I saw no point in a deputation coming all the way to London, at the taxpayers' and ratepayers' expense, to press the representations. I have received many deputations, but I have had to turn some down. There is a limit to the number of hours in a day. Where the evidence was clear and could be dealt with in written submissions, it was unnecessary to ask people to make oral representations. The line had to be drawn somewhere.
Nevertheless, earlier this month, in response to an approach by one of my hon. Friends representing another Derbyshire constituency, I agreed to meet a deputation representing the county council.
I agreed because it was clear that, despite ail our correspondence there was still a strong desire for a meeting from Derbyshire. That had to be arranged at fairly short notice, because I was anxious to see those people before the final decisions were taken. Simultaneously, a number of other Derbyshire Members had asked the Prime Minister to receive a deputation. It was not possible for her to do so, but I agreed. We tried hard to contact as many Opposition Members as possible in the short time available.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. MacGregor: I do not want to make too much of this matter as I want to go on to the merits of the case, which is the guts of the matter, after all.
We invited the leader of the council and the chief executive, who agreed to come, but for some reason, which was not clear to me, they withdrew at the last minute. That was why it was a smaller deputation than expected.

Mr. Eric G. Varley: Let us be plain about this matter. I know that the Minister does not want to mislead the House, but he said on previous occasions that he saw no useful purpose in meeting a deputation from the county council. When the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) arranged the deputation to which the Minister has just referred, I was not contacted by the Department, nor were any of my hon. Friends. I was stopped by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East in the Corridor. He invited me to take part in such a deputation. That is not the way to arrange a deputation. That it is not the way to go about serious consideration of


the retention of intermediate area status. The Minister should put the facts absolutely straight. He refused to see a deputation and the deputation was accepted only on the basis of the Conservative political network.

Mr. MacGregor: I want to be absolutely fair, because the right hon. Gentleman is always fair. I had refused to see a deputation because I thought the case was clear cut. It was because the feeling expressed to me was still strong in Derbyshire that at the last minute I agreed to see a deputation. It was very much at the last minute because I knew that the statement would be made shortly in the House. My diary was extremely crowded. We bent over backwards to try to fit in the meeting. All the arrangements had to be made on the telephone—all were made orally. Whether it was my office or my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) who mentioned the meeting to the right hon. Gentleman, I was assured that he had been contacted. I agree that it was difficult, because the arrangements were made at the last moment, but we went out of our way to try to meet the deputation.
I shall repeat this point because it is important. We looked with extreme care at the whole of Derbyshire's case as it was represented. I now turn to it because the substance of the representations is more important than the mechanics.
I shall underline some of the things that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier today in announcing the outcome of the Government's review of those areas that were special development or development areas in 1979 and are to become non-assisted on 1 August, having thus gone down by two or three stages. My right hon. Friend repeated the Government's determination to continue with an effective regional industrial policy that concentrates the assistance that the country can afford on the areas in greatest need—those with the worst problems of long-standing unemployment and industrial decline.
That is a difficult area to research conclusively, but all the evidence, such as it is, is that regional policies that concentrate on the areas of greatest need are the most effective. That is why we have continued with the policy of reducing the assisted areas from 44 per cent. of the working population in 1979 to 27 per cent., as it will be with the changes announced today.
My right hon. Friend told the House that in carrying out the review to which we were formally committed we had taken the opportunity to look more widely and had identified a few more adjustments to the assisted areas map which developments since the 1979 review had made appropriate. We did not remove any others from assisted area status additional to those in 1979. My right hon. Friend explained the reason today. Considerable notice would have had to be given to do so, not least because of the importance of maintaining some stability and continuity in regional policy. It did not seem to us that this was the occasion to put out of assisted area status more areas that were not expecting it, given that that would also mean a further long delay.
In carrying out this review we were of course guided by the principles that we have followed since we came into office. We have taken travel-to-work areas as the basic building blocks of the assisted areas because they are the smallest areas for which a valid measurement of the need for jobs can be produced. In doing so we have continued

the practice followed by successive Governments. In the Adjournment debate of 18 May I was able to spell that aspect out more.
We have applied the criteria that the Industry Act requires all Secretaries of State to observe in designating assisted areas. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield will know them well. They are that
all the circumstances, actual and expected, including the state of employment and unemployment, population changes, migration and the objectives of regional policies".
In doing so, we must take into account, as hon. Members know, a number of factors. Unemployment is the most obvious, but we must also assess the industrial structure of an area together with its communications with markets and sources of supply. We must examine existing levels of unemployment, except in areas such as the major steel closure areas, where it is clear that there has been a substantial change in their structure and there is evidence of permanent long-term decline, relative to other parts of the country. We do not examine what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East described as official forecasts of unemployment. I have examined unemployment level changes in travel-to-work areas during the past 18 months. What people in the area often believe to be the future change because of what they believe to be in the pipeline is frequently not the case in practice. That is why one considers the existing state rather than listens to the estimates of what might happen in the future.
How does Derbyshire in general, and the travel-to-work-areas that are becoming non-assisted, measure up to this type of analysis? Clearly, from the fact that we have decided that Alfreton and Chesterfield should not remain assisted areas, they do not emerge from the comparisons with the rest of the country as being among the worst affected areas. Unemployment rates are not the be-all and end-all of the exercise, as I have already said, but they are an important element. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) examines the figures, he will find that not all of the travel-to-work areas are above the national average in that respect. During 1981 the average rates for seven of the 12 travel-to-work-areas wholly or partly within the county were at or below the national average, and they still are on the May figures. Of the remainder, only Alfreton and Chesterfield can be considered seriously. In May, the average for such areas was 14·3 per cent., Alfreton was 13·9 per cent. and Chesterfield—the other area at issue—was 12·4 per cent., which was in fact one-tenth of a percentage point above the national rate.
I do not pretend that unemployment rates around the present levels are acceptable. Nobody is more determined than this Government to get unemployment down by our wider economic policies. What is significant about unemployment rates is their comparative levels. On this basis Derbyshire, even Alfreton and Chesterfield, is not significantly disadvantaged compared with the seriously affected areas—the 27 per cent. or so of the working population which is to remain in assisted areas. If unemployment alone does not justify assisted area status, what else might? It cannot convincingly be argued that either area in question displays the kind of heavy dependence on steeply declining sectors of industry that characterises many of the assisted areas. Nor can they be described as isolated from markets and suppliers, with poor communications. It is literally a central part of Britain with good communication connections to other industrialised areas all round.
Even if we accepted that Alfreton and Chesterfield should remain assisted areas, would that necessarily be entirely to their advantage? Altogether 84 travel-to-workareas representing around 17 per cent. of the working population of Great Britain are to become non-assisted on 1 August. Many of them have unemployment rates as high as—often much higher than—Alfreton and Chesterfield. If these two areas retain their status, what about the other 82?
Non-assisted areas, such as many in the West Midlands which face similar industrial problems and have similar communications, have much higher rates of unemployment than the two with which we are dealing. If we granted assisted area status to Alfreton and Chesterfield, many other areas would claim that they should remain assisted. If they do, the domino effect could be so

powerful that it would cut the ground from under the feet of the worst affected areas, depriving them of a good part of the benefits which greater selectivity is intended to bring. Even more significantly, it would also ensure that assisted area status was far less helpful even to Alfreton and Chesterfield than it might be in theory, because there was so much more competition for industrial investment—not to mention the fact that the rest of Derbyshire would also remain at a comparative disadvantage.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.